Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:20:10.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Geert Booij and
Jerzy Rubach
Geert Booij
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Jerzy Rubach
Affiliation:
University of Warsaw
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory of Lexical Phonology proposed in Kiparsky (1982a) is a major step forward in generative phonology with respect to the problem of the interaction of phonology and morphology. Its basic claim is that morphological rules and word level phonological rules are interspersed. A rule of word phonology (i.e. a lexical phonological rule, which exclusively applies within words) may apply as soon as the required environment for its application has been created by some morphological rule. That is: ‘morphology and phonology go hand in hand’.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 1 , May 1984, pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

REFERENCES

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (1977). Dutch morphology: a study of word formation in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (1981). Rule ordering, rule application and the organization of grammars. In Dressler, W. U., Pfeiffer, O. E. & Rennison, J. R. (eds.) Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 45–56.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (1983). Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics 21. 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. (forthcoming a). The interaction of phonology and morphology in prosodic phonology. In Gussmann, E. (ed.) Phono-morphology: studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (forthcoming b). Lexical phonology and the organization of the morphological component. In Gussmann, E. (ed.) Rules and the lexicon. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (forthcoming c). Coordinate reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) Advances in non-linear phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Brame, M. (1974). The cycle in phonology: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. LI 5. 39–60.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. (1980). Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
J., Harris (ms). Spanish syllable structure. To appear as Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1948). Russian conjugation. Word 4. 155–167.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982a). From cyclic to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982b). Word formation and the lexicon. To appear in: Ingemann, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory (ms, MIT).Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1982). Analysis of phonological structures. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1993). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (in preparation). Polish syllable structure.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (in preparation). A grid theory of stress in Polish.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980a). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI II. 563–606.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980b). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, M. & Kean, M.-L. (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anima Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. L. (1979). Against boundary distinctions in English morphology. Linguistic Analysis 5. 387–419.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. L. (1982a). Lexicalist phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. L. (1982b). On ‘relatedness paradoxes’ and related paradoxes. LI 13. 694–700.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. LI 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (1975). Tense and lax vowels – degree of constriction or pharyngeal volume? Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University, II. 109–134.Google Scholar