5
Alternations: Stems
and Allomorphy
Mary Paster
1
Introduction
This chapter discusses stem allomorphy and its theoretical analysis. Four
different general theoretical approaches to the analysis of stem allomorphy
are presented, and their positive and negative attributes are evaluated
relative to what is currently known about properties of stem allomorphy
cross-linguistically. It is argued that no single model is ideal to account
for all types of stem allomorphy; therefore, it is proposed that multiple
frameworks may be needed. The distribution of labor among those models
is discussed as an issue for future research, pending refinement of our
understanding of the typology of stem allomorphy based on further crosslinguistic research and in-depth empirical studies of morphologically complex languages.
“Allomorphy” is defined here as any case of a single set of semantic/
morphosyntactic features having two or more different context-dependent
phonological realizations. This includes cases where a straightforward
phonological rule/constraint may be invoked as well as more complex
examples involving suppletive allomorphy, where multiple underlying
forms are involved whose distribution may be morphologically, lexically,
and/or phonologically governed. A “stem” is defined as a form that can be
inflected (meaning that a stem may consist only of a root, or it may be a root
plus one or more derivational and/or inflectional affixes). Although most
allomorphy probably occurs in affixes rather than stems, the examples in
this chapter will be of allomorphy specifically in stems wherever possible,
given the focus of the chapter. (For discussion of affix allomorphy, as it
relates to paradigms, see Chapter 9 of this volume.)
The chapter will be structured as follows. In Section 2, I present an
overview of the basic types of allomorphy, giving examples of each.
In Section 3, I describe four different theoretical models, explaining how
each would analyze a sample case of stem allomorphy. In Section 4,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
94
MARY PASTER
I discuss some outstanding research questions relating to stem allomorphy. Section 5 concludes the chapter.
2
Types of Allomorphy
Allomorphy was defined above as “any case of a single set of semantic/
morphosyntactic features having two or more different context-dependent
phonological realizations,” but it should be noted that there exist other
definitions of the term. Before describing the types of allomorphy, I will
provide some background regarding the concept and other understandings
of it. See also Paster (2014, to appear) for further discussion.
The definition of allomorphy being used here subsumes phenomena that
many researchers would view as having two fundamentally different loci/
sources—namely, some would be considered phonological in nature and
others morphological. Section 5 will provide further discussion of the
architecture of the grammar and how different theoretical approaches to
allomorphy relate to different ideas of the distinction (if any) between
phonology and morphology. The present definition of allomorphy is
focused on the surface form of the stem. Instances where the phonological
form of the stem varies contextually are all considered to be examples of
allomorphy under this definition, regardless of which component of the
grammar is responsible for the variation. A distinction can then be made
between what I refer to as “suppletive allomorphy” (defined below, and
used interchangeably here with the term “suppletion”), which involves
multiple underlying forms and is therefore a result of morphological functions of the grammar, versus non-suppletive allomorphy, which involves a
single underlying form where variation is due to the action of regular rules/
constraints in the phonological component of the grammar.
Some researchers, however, would refer to non-suppletive allomorphy as
“morphophonology,” reserving the term “allomorphy” specifically for suppletive allomorphy. Further, at least one definition of “allomorphy” (Stockwell
and Minkova 2001: 73) is not only limited to what I call suppletive allomorphy,
but it also requires allomorphs to have a “historically valid” relationship—in
other words, that they are etymologically related. In Stockwell and Minkova’s
typology, cases of what I call suppletive allomorphy but where the underlying
forms are not phonetically similar would not be described as allomorphy; the
phenomenon would be labeled “suppletion” (but not “suppletive allomorphy”)
in the case of stems, or “rival affixes” in the case of affixes. Under the definitions of “allomorphy” and “suppletive allomorphy” (or “suppletion”) that I am
using in this chapter, there is no distinction between the phenomena referred
to by Stockwell and Minkova as “rival affixes” versus “suppletive allomorphs.”
Having defined some important terms and provided some clarification
regarding how my use of the relevant terminology relates to that of other
researchers, I turn now to a discussion of the types of allomorphy.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
95
To begin, it is useful to distinguish two major types of allomorphy, as
alluded to above. The first is non-suppletive phonologically derived allomorphy. This is a situation where a regular phonological rule of a language
applies in a particular phonological context, yielding alternations. This type
of allomorphy commonly applies to stems, even if it applies preferentially
to affixes and not stems in some languages. An example of regular phonologically conditioned stem allomorphy is found in Polish, which exhibits
word-final obstruent devoicing. When a stem underlyingly ends in a voiced
obstruent, if there is no suffix after the stem, the devoicing rule produces a
stem allomorph with a final voiceless obstruent, as can be seen by comparing the genitive singular versus nominative singular forms of the nouns in
(1) (note that examples are given as phonetic transcriptions rather than in
the Polish orthography, which does not reflect devoicing).
(1) Gen sg
klub-u
ob jad-u
targ-u
gaz-u
stav-u
gruz-u
Nom sg
klup
ob jat
tark
gas
staf
grus
Gloss
‘club’
‘dinner’
‘market’
‘gas’
‘pond’
‘rubble’
A straightforward analysis would have a single underlying form of the
stem, reflected in the genitive singular form, and a regular phonological
rule applying in the nominative singular, where the lack of a suffix puts the
stem-final segment into the word-final environment that triggers devoicing. Thus, the allomorphy is derived purely in the phonology. (Note that
this must be analyzed as word-final devoicing rather than pre-vocalic
voicing, since stem-final underlyingly voiceless obstruents do not alternate;
cf. pobɨt~pobɨt-u ‘stay.’)
The second major type of allomorphy is suppletive allomorphy. This is a
type of allomorphy where there are two or more underlying forms that
express the same set of semantic/morphosyntactic features. The grammar
must somehow select among the different underlying forms, whose surface
realizations are in complementary distribution. The basis for selection may
be morphosyntactic, lexical, or phonological—or a combination of these.
We deal with each of these types of suppletive allomorphy below.
In morphosyntactically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, the selection
of an allomorph is conditioned by the morphological or syntactic category
of the word. In the case of stem allomorphy, a specific form of a stem might
be used in a particular morphological context such as past tense versus
other tenses, or when the word belongs to a particular syntactic category
such as when it is used to form a noun vs. a verb. An example is found in
Hopi, as shown in (2), where certain nouns have a stem form used in the
plural that differs in unpredictable ways from the stem form used in the
singular and dual (Hill and Black 1998: 865; Haugen and Siddiqi 2013).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
96
MARY PASTER
(2) Singular
wùuti
tiyo
pöösa
Dual
wùuti-t
tiyo-t
pöösa-t
Plural
momoya-m
tooti-m
pövöya-m
Gloss
‘woman’
‘boy, young man’
‘house mouse’
This case of allomorphy is treated as suppletive since there is no uniform
phonological change to the stem in the plural relative to the singular/dual
form. It is morphologically conditioned since it is the plural category that
triggers the use of the special stem form. Crucially, a given case of stem
allomorphy is only analyzed as morphosyntactically conditioned suppletive
allomorphy if it is the morphosyntactic category per se that conditions the
use of the allomorph, rather than a phonological property of that morphosyntactic category. For instance, the use of the allomorph [twɛlf] with a
voiceless stem-final consonant in the English word twelfth is conditioned by
the ordinal suffix, but this should probably not be considered morphosyntactically conditioned suppletive allomorphy because (1) it is arguably the
voicelessness of the suffix (and not the fact that it is an ordinal form) that
conditions the use of a stem allomorph with a voiceless final consonant;
and (2) the allomorphy is not suppletive since it can be analyzed via a
phonological devoicing rule.
Lexically conditioned suppletive allomorphy defines a situation where
suppletion is idiosyncratic to particular lexical items. Lexically conditioned
suppletion is probably more relevant in the domain of affix allomorphy than
stem allomorphy, and in fact lexically conditioned suppletion in the domain
of stem allomorphy will necessarily involve some additional type of conditioning (since some other property in addition to the lexical item needs
to vary in order for allomorphy to manifest itself). Lexically conditioned
suppletive allomorphy often occurs in tandem with morphosyntactic
conditioning—for example, different classes of verbs in a language may have
different conjugation patterns (which would usually be categorized as
allomorphy in the inflectional endings, rather than in the stem). A parallel
example involving stem allomorphy would be one where, for example, a
certain class of verbs has a special stem form that is used in certain tenses.
An example is the so-called “strong” verbs in Germanic languages (verbs like
eat, sing, and break), whose past tense forms have a special stem allomorph
that is historically derived from phonological ablaut but is arguably suppletive (at least in modern English). The remainder of this chapter will not
consider the lexically conditioned type of suppletion in as much detail as
the other types, given its limited relevance to stem allomorphy specifically.
A final type of suppletive allomorphy is phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy (PCSA). This is a phenomenon where the selection of
suppletive allomorphs is determined by a phonological criterion. This situation is crucially different from the type of regular phonological allomorphy described earlier where a single underlying form corresponds to
multiple surface forms due to the operation of a phonological rule, since
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
97
PCSA by definition involves multiple underlying forms. Interestingly,
although many cases of PCSA seem to mirror the effect of phonological
rules in terms of the surface results of a particular distribution of allomorphs, this is not always the case; sometimes the distribution of allomorphs appears to be phonologically arbitrary (though still phonologically
determined). In the realm of stem allomorphy, cases of PCSA as defined
here seem to be rare. In fact, as discussed below in Section 3.1, in lexical
subcategorization-based approaches to allomorphy, strictly speaking, PCSA
in stems is predicted not to exist. However, some cases are known. An
example that could be seen as phonologically conditioned stem allomorphy
is found in Italian (Hall 1948), where some stems have allomorphs ending in
/isk/ that occur only in morphological contexts where the word stress falls
on the stem-final syllable—namely, in the present and subjunctive 1sg, 2sg,
3sg, and 3pl and in the 2sg imperative (Hall 1948: 25, 27). One such stem is
fin- “finish”; some examples are shown in (3) (Hall 1948: 214) with the forms
in [isk] (and its surface phonological variant [iʃʃ ]) shown in bold.
(3)
Present
finísk-o
finíʃʃ-i
finíʃʃ-e
‘I finish’
‘you (sg) finish’
‘s/he finishes’
fin-iámo
fin-íte
finísk-ono
‘we finish’
‘you (pl) finish’
‘they finish’1
Subjunctive
finísk-a
finísk-a
finísk-a
‘that I finish’
‘that you (sg) finish’
‘that s/he finish’
fin-iámo
fin-iáte
finísk-ano
‘that we finish’
‘that you (pl) finish’
‘that they finish’
‘(you (sg)) finish!’
fin-iámo
fin-íte
‘let’s finish’
‘(you (pl)) finish!’
Imperative
finíʃʃ-i
Other stems of this type include ağ- ‘act,’ argu- ‘argue,’ dilu- ‘add water,’
mεnt- ‘lie,’ diminu- ‘diminish,’ and ammon- ‘admonish’ (Hall 1948: 43–5,
52, 61). There appears not to be any semantic or phonological generalization regarding which stems pattern with this class of verbs in Italian, so the
allomorphy must be lexically conditioned (arbitrarily, by the specific verb
stem) in addition to being phonologically conditioned.2
1
Thanks to Anna Thornton for correcting the transcription of this form, which was incorrectly reported in Paster 2006.
2
I have described the Italian case in terms of the phonological generalization, but the standard analysis appears to be in
terms of arbitrary stem patterns. A number of verbs other than the isc verbs have the same pattern in the present tense
(having a stem form that appears with 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, and 3pl subjects and a different form occurring with 1pl and 2pl);
Maiden 2004 terms this the “N pattern.” Interestingly, there are multiple other types of N-pattern stems that do not
involve isc, including some where a vowel differs between the two versions of the stem but not in a way that is
described by a regular synchronic phonological rule, and the verb andare, whose two stem variants are etymologically
unrelated. The fact that these three very different types of N-pattern stems can all be described in the same
phonological terms may be used in support of an account in terms of phonological optimization, but a more standard
view seems to be that the N pattern is an abstract morphological pattern that diachronically has attracted a number of
stems into its class (see, e.g., Thornton 2007; Da Tos 2013).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
98
MARY PASTER
Phonological
Suppletive (multiple underlying forms)
(one underlying form)
Phonological Morphosyntactic
(PCSA)
Lexical
Figure 5.1. Types of allomorphy
To summarize the typology of allomorphy that I have presented above,
we have discussed two main types of allomorphy (regular phonological
allomorphy and suppletive allomorphy), and, within what I have called
suppletive allomorphy, three subtypes based on the type of conditioning
involved. We can schematize this conception of allomorphy as in Figure 5.1.
It should be pointed out that many cases of suppletive allomorphy are
conditioned simultaneously by more than one of the factors represented in
Figure 5.1. It has already been observed that for stems specifically, lexical
conditioning is accompanied by another type of conditioning, such as
morphological conditioning, as in the example of the Germanic strong
verbs. Another example of multiple types of conditioning is the Hopi case,
where it was noted that only certain nouns exhibit the pattern in (2). Other
nouns have uniform stem forms for singular, dual, and plural. Thus, in
addition to being morphologically conditioned (by the plural category), this
case of stem allomorphy is also lexically conditioned by the noun being
used. The morphologically conditioned stem suppletion only applies if the
noun does not belong to the regular class, whose membership, if arbitrary,
would have to be called lexical. Any adequate theory of suppletive allomorphy will have to be able to accommodate the common situation where more
than one type of conditioning factor is involved.
Having seen a few examples of stem allomorphy and discussed how the
different types are categorized, we turn now to the discussion of how stem
allomorphy can be analyzed theoretically.
3
Analyzing Stem Allomorphy
In this section, I present four different theoretical approaches to the analysis of stem allomorphy. In each case I give an overview of how stem
allomorphy is handled using each theory, and then I discuss the advantages
and drawbacks of each theory with respect to how well the known cases of
stem allomorphy are handled. Some discussion, particularly in Section 3.1
and Section 3.2, draws considerably from Paster (2015), to which I refer the
reader for more detail about the treatment of the PCSA type of suppletive
allomorphy in particular.
The four approaches to be discussed in this section are lexical
subcategorization (§3.1), constraint-based approaches (§3.2), allomorphy
rules (§3.3), and indexed stems (§3.4). We begin with lexical subcategorization.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
99
3.1 Lexical Subcategorization
In a subcategorization model (Lieber 1980; Kiparsky 1982; Selkirk 1982;
Inkelas 1990; Orgun 1996; Yu 2003, 2007; Paster 2006), affixation satisfies
missing elements specified in the lexical entries of morphemes. In this type
of model, suppletive allomorphy is a phenomenon that results when two or
more different morphemes with identical morphosyntactic and semantic
specifications3 have different phonological forms and different subcategorizational requirements. These requirements are schematized via subcategorization frames, which indicate the selectional requirements imposed
by morphemes.
To illustrate how this model works, we return to the Hopi example
presented in Section 2, repeated in (4).
(4) Singular
wùuti
tiyo
pöösa
Dual
wùuti-t
tiyo-t
pöösa-t
Plural
momoya-m
tooti-m
pövöya-m
Gloss
‘woman’
‘boy, young man’
‘house mouse’
Representations of subcategorization frames for the two stem forms of
‘woman’ are given in (5a), and a subcategorization frame for the plural
suffix is given in (5b).
(5)
a.
b.
‘woman’ (plural stem)
[[momoya-]stem, plural ] word,
[[ ]stem -m ] word, plural
plural
‘woman’ (elsewhere stem)
[wùuti-]stem
A higher-level node representing the plural word momoya-m ‘women’ is
shown in (6), with the plural stem and plural suffix as its daughters.
(6)
[[momoya-]stem, plural -m] word, plural
[[momoya-]stem, plural ] word, plural
[[
]stem -m] word, plural
This is a complete word, since the missing elements in the subcategorization frames of both daughters have filled each other in, yielding a representation with no gaps.
Some theoretical questions arise in the representation of the two stem
variants in this example. First, why is it not specified that the plural suffix
3
By some definitions of the term “morpheme,” multiple underlying phonological forms that have identical
morphosyntactic and semantic features would all be considered to be stored as one “morpheme.” That definition is not
useful in the present context, since suppletive allomorphy relies on there being multiple stored underlying forms (soundmeaning pairs), and we need a term to identify each of those stored forms. Some researchers might use the term
“morph” for this purpose, but since the term “morph” does not capture the fact that we are referring to underlying forms
rather than surface alternants, I use the term “morpheme” instead. In this chapter I will not address the question of
whether there is a linguistically significant higher-level unit that subsumes all of the stored forms that have the same
morphosyntactic and semantic properties but possibly different phonological forms and/or subcategorizational
requirements (i.e., groups of what I am calling “morphemes” that have identical morphosyntactic/semantic features).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
100
MARY PASTER
subcategorizes for a plural stem, and given this, how does the plural suffix
select for the plural stem in words like “woman”? The reason that the
plurality of the stem is not specified in the subcategorization frame of the
plural suffix is that, as mentioned earlier, some stems do not have a special
allomorph in the plural. Some examples of these regular nouns are given in
(7) (Hill and Black 1998: 870; Haugen and Siddiqi 2013).
(7) Singular
sino
kawayo
Tasavu
Dual
sino-t
kawayo-t
Tasavu-t
Plural
sino-m
kawayo-m
Tasavu-m
Gloss
‘person’
‘horse’
‘Navajo’
Specifying that the plural suffix subcategorizes for a plural stem would
have the undesirable consequence of requiring that nouns like those in
(7) have two homophonous, listed stems—one specified as plural and one
not. This is why the subcategorizational requirement of the plural suffix is
stated only as a “stem” rather than a plural stem. The plural suffix’s
selection of the plural stem, in nouns where a special plural stem exists,
follows from Pānini’s principle (i.e., the selection of the elsewhere stem is
_
blocked by the availability of a more highly specified stem that is still
compatible with the affix).
Now that we have seen how this model deals with morphosyntactially
conditioned suppletive allomorphy, I will briefly discuss how it handles
other types of allomorphy. Regarding lexically conditioned allomorphy, as
we have already discussed, some additional type of conditioning will always
be present when the allomorphy involves stems. Consider the lexically
conditioned aspect of the Hopi example discussed above. What differentiates
the suppletive stems from the regular stems in this case, in a lexical subcategorization approach, is simply the fact that the suppletive stems have two
separate stored forms, while the regular stems have only one. Examples like
the Germanic strong verbs would be treated similarly, except that the past
tense form of a strong verb stem would not subcategorize for a suffix; it
would merely be limited to occurring in the context of a past tense word.
A representation of the past tense of a strong verb might be as shown in (8).
(8)
[[sang]stem, past]word, past
[[sang]stem, past
] word, past
[[
]stem Ø] word, past
A possible criticism of this approach to Germanic strong stems is that it
fails to capture the phonological systematicity of the stem alternations (i.e.,
that the past tense stem is identical to the elsewhere stem except for the
last vowel, which exhibits ablaut). This relates to the more general criticism
of the subcategorization approach (what Embick 2010 refers to as the
“putative loss of generalization argument”) that it treats apparent
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
101
regularities in allomorph distribution as arbitrary or coincidental. The
position that will be adopted here, regarding the Germanic example, is
that the apparent ablaut is the reflex of a phonological rule that is inactive
in the phonology of modern English. Thus, from the point of view of the
synchronic grammar, the apparent systematicity of the vowel changes in
strong stems is indeed coincidental; the stem variants are lexically listed,
and as far as the grammar is concerned, the vowel alternations could just as
easily be completely unsystematic and random-seeming if the history of the
language had somehow unfolded that way. Support for this view comes
from the lack of a regular ablaut rule in the phonology of modern English
and the impossibility of writing a plausible rule (or constraint ranking) to
account in phonological terms for the alternations.
I have discussed the treatment of PCSA in the subcategorization approach
at length elsewhere (see Paster 2005, 2006, 2009, 2014, 2015, to appear, and
references therein). Briefly, the approach to PCSA is identical to the
approach to morphosyntactically conditioned suppletion, except that the
element that is subcategorized for in PCSA is phonological, rather than
morphosyntactic. This possibility was made explicit by, for example, Orgun
1996 and Yu 2003. This allows the subcategorization frame to account not
only for PCSA, but also for affix placement (prefix, infix, suffix). See Paster
(2009) for an overview.
Regarding the Italian example discussed in Section 2, because the lexical
subcategorization approach requires words to be built from the inside out,
the model as I have defined it here does not allow phonological properties of
affixes to condition PCSA in stems. This does have the advantage of explaining the apparent extreme rarity of examples of this type (see, e.g., Paster
2006), but it also requires a reanalysis of those examples so that we can
understand them as being consistent with the “inside-out” generalization.
One important fact about the Italian case is that, segmentally, the shorter
stem allomorph is a subset of the longer allomorph. This allows us to
analyze -isc as a separate affix. Some previous analyses of Italian stem
allomorphy (e.g., DiFabio 1990; Schwarze 1999) do treat -isc as an affix or
“stem extension.” Analyzing -isc as an affix is helpful in reconciling the
example with the lexical subcategorization model, but it is still problematic
since this would still appear to be an example of PCSA with an “inner”
suffix being conditioned by an “outer” suffix, which is also not allowed by
the model. A further move that we need to make in order to maintain the
“inside-out” generalization is to analyze -isc- an infix rather than a suffix.
This allows us to assume that the word is built as follows: first, the subject
agreement suffix is added to the root, and then the -isc- infix (which I assume
to have inherent stress) will be inserted between the root and the suffix
whenever the suffix is not inherently stressed. The infixing analysis may
provoke some skepticism, but, in fact, this has been proposed independently; for example, DiFabio (1990) and others analyze -isc- (or -sc-) as an infix.
While the infixing analysis may seem like a trick to uphold the “inside-out”
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
102
MARY PASTER
generalization, one must concede that the lack of cases of phonologically
conditioned stem allomorphy is striking given the number of cases involving affix allomorphy. Furthermore, it is not the case that any possible
putative case of stem allomorphy could be explained away. The infixation
account is possible for Italian because isc is present in all of the
extended stems.
Regarding the treatment of cases of non-suppletive allomorphy such as
the Polish example described in Section 2, the lexical subcategorization
model does not necessarily dictate a particular approach. It is compatible
with both constraint-based and rule-based theories of phonology. One thing
to be mentioned in this regard is that in the version of lexical subcategorization that I have articulated here and elsewhere, it is assumed that phonology and morphology are separate components of the grammar, and that
all regular phonology occurs after morphology, modulo interleaving as in
Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982). Given this, subcategorization frames,
being part of the lexicon/morphology, are not especially relevant to regular
phonological alternations in stems. The morphology, via subcategorization,
merely supplies the underlying forms to which the regular phonology later
applies.
An advantage to this approach is that it correctly predicts opaque interactions between suppletive and non-suppletive allomorphy in a single language. An example of this, as I have discussed in Paster (2009), comes from
Turkish (Lewis 1967) (from the domain of affixes; I am not aware of cases of
stem allomorphy that behave this way). As seen in (9), the third-person
possessive suffix has suppletive allomorphs /-i/ and /-si/. The /-i/ form occurs
when the stem ends in a consonant, while the /-si/ form occurs when the
stem ends in a vowel (examples are from Aranovich et al. 2005 and from
Gizem Karaali, personal communication; note that vowel alternations are
due to regular Turkish vowel harmony).
(9)
bedel-i
ikiz-i
alet-i
‘its price’
‘its twin’
‘its tool’
deri-si
elma-sɪ
arɪ-sɪ
‘its skin’
‘its apple’
‘its bee’
At first, this looks like a straightforward case of PCSA. We could analyze
the /-i/ form as subcategorizing for a consonant at the end of the stem, and/
or the /-si/ allomorph subcategorizing for a vowel at the end of the stem.
However, Aranovich et al. (2005) point out that the selection of the suffix
allomorph is opaque in some words due to the operation of a regular Velar
Deletion rule (Sezer 1981) that deletes intervocalic /k/. Some examples are
given in (10).
(10) açlɪ-ɪ
bebe-i
gerdanlɪ-ɪ
ekme-i
‘its
‘its
‘its
‘its
hunger’ (cf. açlɪk ‘hunger’)
baby’ (cf. bebek ‘baby’)
necklace’ (cf. gerdanlɪk ‘necklace’)
bread’ (cf. ekmek ‘bread’)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
103
In these examples, it appears that the /-i/ form has been incorrectly
selected after a vowel, but the citation forms show that each of these stems
is underlyingly consonant-final. The lexical subcategorization approach
allows for a simple explanation of the pattern: the morphology selects the
/-i/ allomorph of the possessive suffix in these forms due to the presence of
stem-final /k/ in the underlying form. The affixed forms are then passed on to
the phonology. Due to the presence of the /-i/ suffix, the /k/ is now in intervocalic position and is therefore deleted. Such cases of opacity are more
difficult to deal with in constraint-based approaches, to which we now turn.
3.2 Constraint-based Approaches
A constraint-based approach to allomorphy uses conflicting constraints to
account for allomorph distribution. In the case of suppletive allomorphy, a
classic constraint-based approach to PCSA in Optimality Theory (OT) is the
‘P >> M’ ranking schema (McCarthy and Prince 1993a, 1993b), later
updated by Wolf (2008, 2013) (see also Chapter 20 of this volume for more
on OT approaches). The basic idea is that a phonological markedness
constraint (P), such as a constraint on syllable structure, outranks a morphological constraint (M), such as one requiring that a certain morphological category should always be marked by one particular variant of an
affix. Where relevant, the phonological constraint can force the morphology to deviate from the preferred surface realization of the morpheme in
question, instead choosing an allomorph that allows the word to satisfy the
phonological constraint while still expressing the function/meaning of the
morpheme in question. Crucially (in the P >> M approach and most other
constraint-based approaches), the separate listed allomorphs of the morpheme are all present in the input, so that even the selection of a special or
dispreferred allomorph satisfies faithfulness constraints. The Italian
example discussed earlier would be modeled as a conflict between, on the
one hand, a set of P constraints relating to stress (perhaps one requiring
exactly one stress per word, in conjunction with one requiring faithfulness
to inherent stress on suffixes), and on the other hand an M constraint such
as Uniform Exponence (Kenstowicz 1996) (11).
(11)
Uniform Exponence: Minimize the differences in the realization of
a lexical item
(morpheme, stem, affix, word)
Both allomorphs of the stem would be present in the input (for “we finish,”
for example, the input would be /{finísk-, fin-}, -iámo /). The ranking P >>
M would select a form with the short stem allomorph (fin-), i.e., fin-iámo.
There is less published work on constraint-based theories of morphology
per se, since the P >> M approach emerged from the OT phonology literature. Therefore there is no definitive statement as to how the OT approach
would handle morphosyntactically or lexically conditioned suppletive
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
104
MARY PASTER
allomorphy. Regarding morphosyntactic conditioning, presumably it would
be conflicts among M constraints (rather than between P and M constraints)
that would yield suppletive allomorphy in an approach along the lines of
the P >> M approach to PCSA. In the case of the Hopi example discussed
above, for example, the M constraint being violated in forms with the special
allomorph might be Uniform Exponence, discussed above. The higherranked constraint forcing violations of Uniform Exponence in plural
words would need to have the function of Pānini’s principle, combining with
_
the specification of the plural stem form with a plural feature to force the
selection of the special plural stem allomorph in plural words where such a
stem allomorph exists. For ease of exposition, let us call this constraint
Special Plural (12), although it may reduce to something more general4
(see also Chapter 17 of this volume for discussion of Pānini’s principle).
_
(12) Special Plural: Use the plural stem allomorph in plural forms.
As in the P >> M approach to PCSA, for other types of suppletive
allomorphy, all listed allomorphs would appear in the input to the tableau
for any word containing the stem in question, such that input-output
faithfulness constraints do not distinguish between candidates containing
one allomorph versus the other. This assumption, combined with the
ranking Special Plural >> Uniform Exponence, would cause the plural
stem to be selected in plural forms (13a) and the elsewhere stem to be
selected in non-plural forms (13b).
(13)
a. momoya-m ‘womenPL’
/{momoyaPL, wùuti}, -mPL/
Special Plural
a. momoya-m
b. wùuti-m
b. wùuti-t ‘womenDU’
/{momoyaPL, wùuti}, -tDU/
a. momoya-t
Uniform Exponence
*
*!
Special Plural
Uniform Exponence
*!
b. wùuti-m
Other analyses are possible in a constraint-based approach depending on
one’s theory. For example, if constraints on inputs are allowed, Pānini’s
_
principle could be considered a constraint on inputs rather than a violable
4
One proposal to capture Pānini’s principle in constraint form is SUBSET BLOCKING (Xu 2007: 80): “An exponent
_
(Exponent1) cannot co-occur with another exponent (Exponent2) if the latter (Exponent2) realizes a subset of feature
values that are realized by the former (Exponent1).” This was proposed to deal with inflectional morphology;
attempting to use this constraint for stem allomorphy seems to backfire. In the present case, SUBSET BLOCKING would only
be satisfied either by choosing the less specified stem or by not expressing the plural suffix, since the plural feature of
the suffix is a subset of the features of the plural stem. If a higher-ranked constraint forced the plural suffix to surface
anyway, this would then force the selection of the less specified stem in order to satisfy SUBSET BLOCKING.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
105
constraint, such that only the most highly specified stem allomorph that is
compatible with the features of the word as a whole appears in the input.
In this type of model, non-suppletive phonological allomorphy would be
handled using ranked phonological constraints, as in OT phonology and its
relatives. A full explanation of constraint-based analyses of phonological
alternations is of course far beyond the scope of this chapter. One point to
be made here is that a putative advantage of the constraint-based approach
to allomorphy is that the same P constraints are responsible both for PCSA
and non-suppletive phonological allomorphy. This is claimed to be an
advantage because in some languages there are instances of suppletive
allomorphy that appear to be driven by the same phonological considerations as regular phonological alternations and/or phonotactic generalizations in the language. For example, Wolf (2008: 103–5) discusses an
example from Kɔnni (Cahill 2007) where the noun class system appears to
conspire with the regular phonotactics of the language to avoid flaps in
adjacent syllables. No flap-final roots occur in the noun class that has a flapinitial suffix, and in addition, the sequence [ɾVɾ] does not occur within
morphemes. Wolf argues that OT offers a better analysis of this example
than the lexical subcategorization approach does, because the OT analysis
unifies the two phenomena via a single markedness constraint, while the
subcategorization approach would have to treat the two phenomena
separately.
Because the OT approach handles both PCSA and regular phonological
allomorphy (as well as static phonotactics) with the same P constraints in
the same component of the grammar, it predicts that examples of PCSA will
be phonologically “optimizing” (since they are driven by phonological
markedness constraints in this model). This means that the distribution
of allomorphs should be better from the point of view of some phonological
markedness constraint(s) than it would be if the distribution of allomorphs
were reversed. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Paster 2005, 2006, 2009),
and as also noted by Bye (2007), this does not seem to be an accurate
prediction; there are many languages having instances of PCSA that are
not phonologically optimizing in any identifiable way and that apparently
cannot be analyzed using markedness constraints which have been proposed elsewhere in the literature. A well-known example comes from
Haitian creole, where the definite determiner suffix has the form /-a/ after
vowel-final stems and /-la/ after consonant-final stems. As discussed by, for
example, Bye (2007), this distribution of suffix allomorphs is the opposite of
what syllable structure constraints (Onset, NoCoda) would predict.
3.3 Allomorphy Rules and Readjustment Rules
The Distributed Morphology (DM) approach to grammar (Halle and Marantz
1993; see also Chapter 15 of this volume for an overview), like lexical subcategorization, distinguishes between suppletive and morphophonological
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
106
MARY PASTER
allomorphy, but the distinction is made differently. In DM, suppletive allomorphy is modeled via competition between different vocabulary items
(VI; essentially morphemes, including phonological content) for insertion
into syntactic nodes during what is called “spell-out.” The competing
VIs are specified as to the environment (morphosyntactic or phonological)
into which they will be inserted, just as in lexical subcategorization.
Morphophonological allomorphy, where the allomorphs in competition
are phonologically similar, is handled via a single VI being inserted,
followed by the application of readjustment. Readjustment rules are different from phonological rules in being less constrained formally; for example,
where rules in most versions of rule-based phonology can target only a
single segment, readjustment rules in DM can change entire sequences.
Related to the readjustment rule is the allomorphy rule (see, e.g., Aronoff
1976), which changes the segments of a morpheme into another string
of segments in some morphologically defined environment. A possible
critique of both readjustment rules and allomorphy rules is that they are
overly powerful; while “rewrite” rules in phonology have been criticized for
their excessively powerful ability to change any segment into any arbitrarily
different segment in any stable environment (see, e.g., Coleman 1998),
readjustment rules and allomorphy rules have exponentially greater power
since they can target entire sequences of segments. Another drawback of the
allomorphy rule approach that has been discussed in the literature (see, e.g.,
Rubach and Booij 2001) is that it is often not possible to write a rule that
applies in a natural class of environments. Any theory has to acknowledge
that stem allomorphy often occurs in unnatural groupings of morphological environments, but incorporating this fact into an analysis greatly
diminishes the simplicity and elegance of an allomorphy rule, while it is
more straightforward to capture in other approaches like stem indexation,
to be discussed in Section 3.4.
In DM, the Hopi example discussed earlier would presumably be treated as
suppletive allomorphy since the allomorphs are not phonologically similar.
Early statements in the development of DM suggested that roots do not
compete with each other for lexical insertion, but stems do apparently compete. For example, in the analysis of Latin stem allomorphy given by Embick
(2010: 85–6), multiple forms of the verb stem “be” including fu- and es- are in
competition, resolved by fu- being limited to occurring in the perfective form.
Using Embick’s notation, the VIs for the two Hopi stem allomorphs would be
as given in (14), where ‘__ ͡ Num[pl]’ indicates that the momoya allomorph is
limited to the context where it is concatenated with the plural suffix. This VI
will take precedence since it is the more specific of the two.
(14)
[nwoman] $ momoya / __ ͡ Num[pl]
[nwoman] $ wùuti
In contrast to the Hopi nouns, the Germanic strong verbs would be
handled in DM via readjustment rules since the competing allomorphs
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
107
are more closely phonologically related. See, for example, Embick and
Marantz (2008: 2): “A morphophonological readjustment rule changes the
phonology of give to gave in the context of the past tense morpheme.”
The treatment of PCSA in DM is considered in detail by Embick (2010).
A key feature of DM that is relevant to PCSA is late lexical insertion. In
other theories, affixation and other morphological operations apply to
morphemes whose phonological form is visible to the grammar from the
beginning of the derivation. In DM, most such operations apply in the
syntax to abstract nodes prior to spell-out, meaning that the phonological
content is not yet visible. Under the strongest interpretation of late lexical
insertion, no phonological content would be available to the grammar at
the point of spell-out, meaning that PCSA should not be possible. However,
it has been proposed that spell-out applies cyclically by phase,5 meaning
that phonological material is visible to the grammar if it was spelled out on
an earlier cycle (see Embick (2010) for a detailed articulation of this mechanism). Thus, PCSA is possible when the phonological environment needed
for the insertion of a particular VI is under a node in the same phase or a
phase that triggered an earlier cycle of spell-out, but not in a phase that
will undergo spell-out later in the derivation. This limits the possible types
of PCSA in interesting ways, in that it allows for limited instances of
‘outside-in’ suppletive allomorphy conditioning, where a phonological
property of an affix conditions the selection of an allomorph of an affix
“inside” it (closer to the root) or of the stem itself. The possibility of
“outside-in”-conditioned PCSA has been a point of contention between
proponents of the subcategorization versus constraint-based approaches,
since Paster’s (2006) large cross-linguistic survey of examples of PCSA
revealed no clear cases, while Wolf (to appear) has since identified some
languages that he claims instantiate outside-in conditioning, and Embick
(2010: 61) presents a possible case of outside-in conditioning from
Hupa (Golla 1970) he claims supports the DM approach specifically. (The
generalization in Hupa is that the 1sg subject prefix allomorph e- is used
when preceded by perfective prefix and the verb is non-stative; the prefix
W- occurs elsewhere. If this example holds up, it constitutes outside-in
conditioning since the perfective prefix occurs farther from the root than
the prefix whose allomorphy is sensitive to it.) The Italian example discussed earlier would also be compatible with the DM approach, if it could
be demonstrated that the stem and the inflectional suffixes (whose stress
patterns are claimed to drive the stem allomorphy) are spelled out in a
single cycle.
As with the lexical subcategorization approach, the DM approach and
allomorphy rules do not necessarily specify an approach to regular nonphonological allomorphy.
5
On phases, see Chomsky (2008) and references therein.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
108
MARY PASTER
3.4 Indexed Stems
A final approach to be considered here is the use of stem indexation (see,
e.g., Aronoff 1994). The concept of stem indexation has been incorporated
into multiple different frameworks, including Network Morphology
(Hippisley 1998; see also Chapter 18 of this volume) and Paradigm Function
Morphology (Stump 2001; see also Chapter 17 of this volume). As a result of
the observation that in many languages stem allomorphs are distributed in
unnatural ways, in this model stem allomorphs are indexed such that all
the different stem contexts can be coindexed to match the correct stem
allomorph, obviating the need for the stem itself to bear a list of the
contexts in which it appears.
Following Hippisley’s (1998) notation, a representation of the Hopi
lexeme meaning “woman” in an indexed stem approach might be as in (15).
(15)
WÙUTI
syntax:
noun
semantics:
‘woman’
phonology (stem inventory):
0 /wùuti/; 1 /momoya/
The rules for realizing singular and dual forms would then reference the
stem index 0, while the rule for realizing a plural form would reference the
stem index 1. In this case, the distribution of stem allomorphs could alternatively be characterized as [+plural] versus [-plural], so the advantage of the stem
indexation approach is not as clear as in other examples. The benefits of stem
indexation are more dramatically observable in languages where stem allomorphy occurs in large inflectional paradigms (see, e.g., Stump 2001, Chapter 6
on Sanskrit; Hippisley 1998 on Russian). Essentially, the approach is similar to
lexical subcategorization approach in that morphemes select for other morphemes, but it is different in that affixation is handled by realization rules
here, so the stem is not necessarily present in the representation prior to
affixation, as opposed to the way that words are built from the inside out
under the version of lexical subcategorization that I have described. On the one
hand, this is an advantage of the indexed stems approach if there are examples
of stem allomorphy that cannot be handled by lexical subcategorization; on
the other hand, it is a liability if it turns out that affix-conditioned stem
allomorphy in general is extremely rare (i.e., if Paster’s (2006) findings in the
domain of PCSA turn out to be generalizable to morphologically conditioned
suppletion as well) and all the putative examples turn out to be reanalyzable.
PCSA in stems conditioned by phonological properties of affixes can be
handled in this approach via a “morphological metageneralization” rule
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
109
(Stump 2001: 180–3). Such a rule would look at all of the realization rules
and could create a set of rules whose output contains affixes with a certain
phonological property (for example, in the Italian case, inherent stress).
That set of affixes would then be subject to a rule referring to a specific
stem index (in the Italian example, the rule for the inherently stressed
suffixes would refer to the index of the fin- allomorph). Note that, as in
the lexical subcategorization approach, the indexed stems/morphological
metageneralization approach treats PCSA as phonologically arbitrary
rather than being driven by phonological markedness. Thus, it has the
same apparent advantage of the lexical subcategorization model in
terms of predicting and being able to account for cases where PCSA
seems to be arbitrary rather than optimizing; on the other hand, it is
vulnerable to the same criticism that proponents of constraint-based
models have leveled against lexical subcategorization, namely that in the
cases of allomorphy that do appear to be optimizing, the model does not
explain the relationship between the choice of allomorph and the conditioning environment.
As with the subcategorization approach and the allomorphy rules/
readjustment rules approach, the indexed stem approach does not necessarily presuppose a particular theory of phonology. Therefore, it does not
appear to prescribe a treatment of non-suppletive allomorphy.
Having demonstrated and evaluated four possible approaches to the
analysis of stem allomorphy, in Section 4 we will discuss remaining problems and issues for future research.
4
Outstanding Issues
In Section 3 we have seen four different theories/frameworks for analyzing
stem allomorphy: lexical subcategorization, constraint-based approaches,
readjustment rules, and indexed stems. For each theory, we have discussed
how the various types of stem allomorphy would be approached. We have
also discussed some advantages and drawbacks of each model. The question
now remains as to which model is superior and ought to be adopted—or, if
some combination of these approaches is indicated, how can they be reconciled with each other in terms of an appropriate division of labor?
As has been discussed, the various models make “cuts” in different places
between different types of allomorphy. In the typology that I presented in
Section 2, there are two basic types of allomorphy: phonological (nonsuppletive) vs. suppletive, defined as involving one underlying form of the
morpheme (in the non-suppletive case) versus two or more (in suppletion).
The version of the lexical subcategorization approach that I have presented
here aligns with this typological division, since non-suppletive allomorphy
is handled by the phonology, while a distinct morphological component of
the grammar is responsible for suppletive allomorph selection.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
110
MARY PASTER
Both the readjustment rules approach and the indexed stems approach
also appear to leave non-suppletive allomorphy to the domain of phonology,
but the readjustment rules approach makes an additional distinction relative to the subcategorization and indexation approaches. With readjustment rules, some cases of suppletion are dealt with as separate underlying
forms that compete for insertion, while some other cases of what the other
two models would deem “suppletion” (and would handle via two separate
underlying forms, whether as separate listed morphemes under subcategorization or as separately indexed stems in a single lexeme under stem
indexation) are treated via a single underlying form. The criterion distinguishing the two cases is phonological similarity: if the two allomorphs are
similar, it is assumed that there is only one basic form of the VI that is
inserted and may then be subject to readjustment rules, which are more
powerful than phonological rules/constraints and can therefore handle
greater variability between surface forms of a single underlying form than
the other two models would tolerate. A major challenge and source of
vulnerability for the readjustment rules approach relative to the other
two is to define what constitutes sufficient phonological similarity to
reduce the allomorphs to a single underlying VI. Presumably the answer
is that they must be similar enough to be relatable via one or more valid
readjustment rules, but this then raises the equally challenging question
of what is a possible readjustment rule. At present, there does not appear
to be any consensus—for example, among practitioners of Distributed
Morphology—regarding a theory of readjustment rules. One could level a
similar critique against the other two models on the grounds that the
decision to analyze allomorphy as suppletive or not depends on a theory
of rules/constraints, but it can be argued that there has been more progress
in this area and that this is not as hard a problem as a theory of readjustment rules. I will take this point up again later.
The constraint-based approach differs from the other three in that it does
not distinguish significantly between PCSA and what the other models
would treat as non-suppletive phonologically driven allomorphy. Both are
handled within a single component of the grammar (which contains both
phonological and morphological constraints). The only difference between
the two phenomena from the point of view of a constraint-based theory is
that in PCSA, all of the different stem allomorphs are present (in curly
brackets) in the input to a tableau, as opposed to non-suppletive allomorphy
where there is only one listed form in the input. This does align with the
idea of separately listed morphemes (in the subcategorization approach),
indexed stems (in the stem indexation approach), or VIs (in the readjustment rules approach), but its effect is very different since the stem allomorphs have equal status in the input for any form that will contain one of
the allomorphs on the surface. For a given case, it is essentially trivial
whether one or multiple underlying forms are posited, since as far as
faithfulness constraints are concerned, whichever allomorph is chosen on
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
111
the surface will already have been present in the input as if it were selected
in advance. The ability of the constraint-based model to generalize to
morphologically and lexically conditioned suppletive allomorphy will be
determined by the successful development of a constraint-based theory of
morphology. See Caballero and Inkelas 2013 for one recent effort in
this area.
In deciding which model offers a superior approach to allomorphy
(setting aside non-suppletive allomorphy, since of the four models only
the constraint-based approach actually dictates an approach to that type
of allomorphy), considerations of empirical adequacy are relevant. In the
domain of PCSA, as referenced above, there has been a detailed crosslinguistic survey of the phenomenon (e.g., Paster 2006) and considerable
argumentation over details of the cross-linguistic generalizations (see references above), particularly as they relate to the debate between lexical
subcategorization and constraint-based approaches, but more recently the
readjustment rules approach in Distributed Morphology as well. Much of
the debate has concerned (1) whether allomorphy is optimizing and (2)
whether it can be conditioned from the outside in.
Regarding optimization, I and others (Bye 2007; Embick 2010) have
argued elsewhere that being able to capture apparent phonological optimization in PCSA is not an advantage of the constraint-based approach in
light of the fact that not all cases are optimizing. The purported advantage
is entirely self-generated: the theory is claimed to have an advantage in
being able to account naturally and without stipulation for cases that it
treats as optimizing via a theory of optimization, but the fact remains that
this model treats the non-optimizing cases (when they are discussed at all
in the OT literature) via stipulative, language-specific, and sometimes
decidedly unnatural constraints. The superior “explanatory power” of the
model is thus reduced to an ability to explain some subset of the attested
examples, in comparison to other models which are said not to explain any
of them. Thus, this does not in my view constitute a valid argument in favor
of the constraint-based approach. I argue in Paster (to appear) that the
synchronic grammar is not the proper locus for the “explanation” of any
of the patterns, whether they appear on the surface to be optimizing or not.
Regarding the direction of conditioning, I asserted (Paster 2006), extrapolating from results of a cross-linguistic survey of PCSA, that true “outside-in”
conditioning does not exist, meaning that PCSA in stems should not be
conditioned by a property of an affix. Some examples that appeared on the
surface to constitute outside-in conditioning were shown to be reanalyzable.
However, as noted earlier, some examples have since been put forward
that may pose tougher challenges to the claim (see Wolf 2008, 2013;
Embick 2010). A closer look at the details of these examples will determine
whether they do constitute counterexamples. If so, what explains the crosslinguistic rarity of outside-in conditioned PCSA? And is there a strict limit to
the theoretically possible cases (as Embick 2010 proposes) or not? The case
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
112
MARY PASTER
from Sanskrit discussed by Stump (2001: Chapter 6), where verb stem
allomorphs are distributed based on whether the inflectional suffix is
consonant- or vowel-initial, should be added to the list of examples to be
evaluated.
Outside the domain of PCSA, more cross-linguistic research would be
helpful to the analysis of other types of suppletive allomorphy in stems
and more broadly. A broad cross-linguistic search for known cases of
morphologically conditioned stem allomorphy, for instance, would be
useful. Considerable progress on the typology of suppletion has been made
by the Surrey Morphology group (see, e.g., Brown et al. 2004; Chumakina
2004; Corbett 2007). A fuller understanding of the range and parameters of
suppletive allomorphy in the world’s languages will shape the development
of theoretical approaches to the phenomenon.
Setting aside the empirical questions raised above that do not yet have
answers, there are some ways in which the decision among competing
approaches to allomorphy will rely on theoretical argumentation. For
example, it was mentioned earlier that the readjustment rules approach
is lacking a coherent theory of the form and limits of readjustment rules.
Such a theory is needed both for the development of the general theory
(e.g., of Distributed Morphology) and also for the analysis of a given language, since the question of whether a single underlying form or multiple
underlying forms is involved in a given case of phonologically conditioned
allomorphy depends on what readjustment rules can or cannot do. The
related question of what the “regular phonology” of a language can do
(whether in a rule- or constraint-based framework) is relevant to similar
decisions about underlying forms in the lexical subcategorization and
indexed stems approaches. For the lexical subcategorization approach,
I have elsewhere discussed a number of criteria for determining whether
a given case of phonologically conditioned allomorphy is suppletive or not.
Fuller discussion of these is given in Paster (2006: 27–31) (see also Paster
2014), but to restate it briefly here, the criteria are adapted from Kiparsky
(1996: 17):
(16)
Suppletive
A item-specific
B may involve more than one
segment
C obey morphological locality
conditions
D ordered prior to all
morphophonemic rules
Non-suppletive
general (not item-specific)
involve a single segment
observe phonological locality
conditions
follow all morpholexical
processes
Kiparsky does acknowledge that these criteria “cannot claim to provide an
automatic resolution of every problematic borderline case” (1996: 16).
I have argued that criterion (A), involving the generality of the pattern, is
one of the more useful criteria. If a phonological rule needed to analyze a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
113
pattern of allomorphy in one morpheme can also account for other patterns
of allomorphy in the language, this suggests that the allomorphy is not
suppletive. On the other hand, if the rule needed to account for a pattern of
allomorphy would only apply to that particular morpheme, then the allomorphy is more likely suppletive.
A related factor is the plausibility of the proposed rule. If the rule is itemspecific but is also formally simple, then this is an argument in favor of nonsuppletive allomorphy. On the other hand, if the proposed rule would be
formally complex (perhaps involving multiple operations or affecting multiple segments simultaneously—thus relating to Kiparsky’s criterion (B)), the
pattern should be analyzed as suppletive. Applying this criterion does
require a commitment to some formal model for which it is clear what
constitutes an allowable operation, trigger, target, and so forth, so that the
plausibility of a rule can be assessed. I have assumed a rule-based phonology
that includes autosegmental representations and extrinsic rule ordering,
though what I have said here may be compatible with a wide variety of
approaches to phonology.
Any model of allomorphy will have to be paired with its own statement of
criteria for distinguishing between types of allomorphy. A comparison
among models could then be based in part on theoretical argumentation
regarding how powerful a phonological system is required by each model
and the plausibility of such a model.
5
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have presented an overview of the logically possible types
of stem allomorphy, giving examples of each type. I have discussed four
different theoretical approaches to stem allomorphy and shown how each
would deal with the different types of allomorphy. In the preceding section,
I have compared some features of the different approaches and discussed
how further empirical research and/or theory development might help to
distinguish among them.
In some respects, the choice of theoretical approaches to allomorphy may
be a subject on which there will never be consensus. Some of the four
approaches discussed in this chapter are radically different from each
other, and of course these four do not represent the full range of possible
approaches that exist in the literature or could be proposed. It is daunting
to imagine finding common ground among them, and perhaps it is
tempting to remain agnostic or to continue working within one’s own
theory while allowing that other models may also have their advantages
and may be scientifically useful theories in the way that they inspire new
research and thinking. On the other hand, the decision as to which
approach to take is important not only in itself but in some cases in much
larger questions about the nature of human language. For example, the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
114
MARY PASTER
constraint-based approach treats phonology and morphology as part of a
single component of the mental grammar, while the lexical subcategorization approach treats them as crucially distinct from each other, and the
realization rules approach within Distributed Morphology conceives of the
division among components of the grammar in yet another radically different way. Thus, while it may be difficult to demonstrate the superiority of
one approach over another, the effort to do so is crucial to advancing our
understanding of human language.
References
Aranovich, Raúl; Sharon Inkelas, Orhan Orgun, and Ronald Sprouse. 2005.
Opacity in phonologically conditioned suppletion. Paper presented at
the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, Dunstan; Marina Chumakina, Greville G. Corbett, and Andrew
Hippisley. 2004. The Surrey Suppletion Database. [Available online at
www.smg.surrey.ac.uk.]
Bye, Patrik, 2007. Allomorphy: selection, not optimization. In Sylvia Blaho,
Patrik Bye, and Martin Krämer (eds.), Freedom of Analysis? Studies in
Generative Grammar 95, 63–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Caballero, Gabriela, and Sharon Inkelas. 2013. Word construction: Tracing
an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23.2, 103–43.
Cahill, Michael C. 2007. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Kɾnni.
Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero,
and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:
Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chumakina, Marina. 2004. The notion ‘possible word’ and its limits:
A typology of suppletion. An annotated bibliography. [Available
online at www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/Suppletion_BIB/WebBibliography
.htm (accessed March 14, 2016).]
Coleman, John. 1998. Phonological Representations: Their Names, Forms and Powers.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, number 85. Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible
words. Language 83.1, 8–42.
Da Tos, Martina 2013. The Italian FINIRE-type verbs: A case of morphomic
attraction. In Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith
(eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, 45–67. Oxford University Press.
DiFabio, Elvira G. 1990. The Morphology of the Verbal Infix isc in Italian
and Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
115
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology.
Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39.1, 1–53.
Golla, Victor. 1970. Hupa Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California–Berkeley.
Hall, Robert A. 1948. Descriptive Italian Grammar. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press and Linguistic Society of America.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the
pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from
Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Haugen, Jason D., and Daniel Siddiqi. 2013. Roots and the derivation.
Linguistic Inquiry 44.4, 493–517.
Hill, K. C., and M. E. Black. 1998. A sketch of Hopi grammar. In The
Hopi Dictionary Project (eds.), Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni:
A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, 861–900. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Hippisley, Andrew. 1998. Indexed stems and Russian word formation:
A Network Morphology account of Russian personal nouns. Linguistics
36, 1039–1124.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland
Publishing.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-Identity and Uniform Exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In J. Durand and B. Laks (eds.), Current Trends in
Phonology: Models and Methods, vol. 1, 363–93. Salford: ESRI.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Frances
Ingemann (ed.), 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 1–29.
Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. Allomorphy or morphophonology? In Rajendra
Singh, ed., Trubetzkoy’s Orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable
‘Morphophonology: Contemporary Responses,’ 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Maiden, Martin. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs: On the genesis
of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38.3–4, 227–56.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. Yearbook
of Morphology 1993, 79–153.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993b. Prosodic Morphology I:
Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology with
Special Attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California–Berkeley.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005
116
MARY PASTER
Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllablecounting allomorphy. In John Alderete et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the
24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–33. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Paster, Mary 2006. Phonological Conditions on Affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.
Paster, Mary 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure
2.1, 18–47.
Paster, Mary 2014. Allomorphy. In Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 219–34. Oxford
University Press.
Paster, Mary. 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy:
Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Eulàlia Bonet,
Maria-Rosa Lloret, and Joan Mascaró (eds.), Understanding Allomorphy:
Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 218–53. Advances in Optimality
Theory series. London: Equinox.
Paster, Mary (to appear). Diachronic sources of allomorphy. In Vera Gribanova and Stephanie Shih (eds.), The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection:
Locality and Directionality at the Interface. Oxford University Press.
Rubach, Jerzy, and Geert E. Booij. 2001. Allomorphy in Optimality Theory:
Polish iotation. Language 77.1, 26–60.
Schwarze, Christoph. 1999. Inflectional classes in Lexical Functional
Morphology: Latin -sk- and its evolution. In Miriam Butt and Tracy
Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG ’99 Conference. Stanford: CSLI.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sezer, Engin. 1981. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In G. N. Clements (ed.),
Harvard Studies in Phonology, 354–82. Bloomington: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Stockwell, Robert, and Donka Minkova. 2001. English Words: History and
Structure. Cambridge University Press.
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure.
Cambridge University Press.
Thornton, Anna. 2007. Is there a partition in the present indicative of
Italian regular verbs? Online Annali di Ferrara: Lettere 2, 43–61.
Wolf, Matthew A. 2008. Optimal Interleaving: Serial PhonologyMorphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Wolf, Matthew A. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwardslooking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23.2, 145–78.
Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D.
dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation. Ph.D.
dissertation, UC Berkeley.
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford University Press.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Bill To for 21002 Zurich Uni), on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:38:59, subject
to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.005