Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:55:23.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heavy trochees in Choctaw morphology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Michael Hammond
Michael Hammond
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory of prosodic morphology (McCarthy & Prince 1986, 1990, 1993) maintains that various operations in morphology can refer to only a fixed set of prosodic categories. These operations include reduplication, infixation and various templatic systems. The prosodic categories are exhaustively listed in (1):

This is an extremely constrained theory, as it limits a wide variety of operations to just this list of eight types.

Information

Type
Squibs and replies
Information
Phonology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 325 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Crowhurst, M. (1993). Heavy feet in Sierra Miwok. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America,Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1991). Metrical theory and learnability. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Ishihara, M. (1992). Hypocoristic formation in the Oku dialect of Okinawan Japanese: evidence for heavy syllable feet in morphology. Southern Review 7. 8–16.Google Scholar
Ka, Omar (1988). Wolof phonology and morphology: a non-linear approach. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. & McCarthy, J. (1991). Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 8. 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8. 209–284.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993). Prosodic morphology I. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Nicklas, T. (1974). The elements of Choctaw. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nicklas, T. (1975). Choctaw morphophonemics. In Crawford, J. M. (ed.) Studies in Southeastern Indian Languages. Athens, Ga: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Spring, C. (1993). Variation in the Choctaw Y grade: against the iambic template. Ms, UCSD.Google Scholar
Ulrich, C. (1986). Choctaw morphophonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). Template morphology and the direction of association. NLLT 6. 551–577.Google Scholar