Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T20:14:38.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do morphophonological exchange rules exist? A reply to DiCanio et al. (2020)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Paul de Lacy
Paul de Lacy*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
*
delacy@rutgers.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

DiCanio et al. (2020) (this volume) argue that San Martin Itunyoso Triqui has a morphophonological exchange (also called ‘polarity’), where morphemes are realized by switching feature values: e.g. the bare root [anĩɦ] ‘get dirty’ is realized as [anĩ:] in the 1s, while the root [ani:] ‘stop’ is 1s [amĩɦ]. In this Reply, I seek to clarify how the descriptive use of ‘exchange’ relates to and differs from its meaning in phonological theories. I also show that the issue of whether exchanges exist is highly theory-dependent. For SPE, Lexical Phonology and Morphology, and single-level parallelist OT with opacity mechanisms, the IT forms do not provide evidence for exchange mechanisms. In contrast, a version of OT that lacks opacity mechanisms probably cannot generate the IT forms without an exchange mechanism. Issues facing the analyst, such as how to prove that exchanges exist, and which apparent exchanges one should expect to observe, are also discussed.

Keywords

morphophonological polarityexchange rulesanti-faithfulnessopacityItunyoso Triqui

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonological Data and Analysis , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , 2020, pp. 29 - 43
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Published by the Linguistic Society of America with permission of the author under a CC BY 3.0 license.
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Paul de Lacy.

References

Alderete, John. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18. 201–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675701004067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Browne, Wayles. 1973. On keeping exchange rules in Czech. Papers in Linguistics 6. 445–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2018. Stratal Phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory. 100–134. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2006. Eliminating exchange rules in Dholuo. Manuscript. University of Tromso/CASTL. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.7938.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
DiCanio, Christian T. 2008. The phonetics and phonology of San Martin Itunyoso Trique. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
DiCanio, Christian T. 2010. Itunyoso Trique. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40. 2. 227- 238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100310000034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCanio, Christian, Cruz, Basileo Martínez, Martínez, Benigno Cruz & Cruz, Wilberto Martínez. 2020. Glottal toggling in Itunyoso Triqui. Phonological Data and Analysis 2 (4). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v2art4.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Anthony D. 2006. The independence of phonology and morphology: The Celtic mutations. Lingua 116 (11). 1946–1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Edgar A. 1974. Consonant polarity in Nilotic. In Voeltz, Erhard (ed.), Third Annual Conference on African Linguistics. 105–109. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy. 2011. Vowel epenthesis. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology, Volume 3. 1–21. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0067.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2012. Morphophonological polarity. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence. 121–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul and Bye, Patrik. 2008. Metrical influences on lenition and fortition. In de Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.), Lenition and fortition (Studies in Generative Grammar). 173–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211443.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675799003784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511613333.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill L., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. 249–384. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2004. Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In Mc-Carthy, John J. (ed.), Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader. 141–164. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A. 1982. Theoretical issues in Dakota phonology and morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2007. Voicing polarity in Luo. Manuscript. University of Leipzig, https://home.uni- leipzig.de/jtrommer/papers/antiauto6.pdf.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2012. Polarity and constraints on paradigmatic distinctness. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence. 160–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprofoso/9780199573721.003.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar