<OT> New Posting: ROA-557

[roa@equinox.rutgers.edu]

==================================================================
*PLEASE NOTE*
The following is one of 13 announcements for new ROA postings 
that have been submitted since the Optimal List has been 
reconstituted.  So, you should be getting 13 such messages.  
There is no need for alarm.
==================================================================

ROA 557-1102

Structural disparities in Navajo word domains: A case for LexCat-Faithfulness

John Alderete <alderete@ruccs.rutgers.edu>

Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=557


Abstract:
Verbs in Navajo are made up of a stem and two types of 
prefixes: the so-called disjunct prefixes and conjunct 
prefixes. Disjunct prefixes form a natural class with 
stems because, like stems, they exhibit the full range 
of phonological structures. Disjunct prefixes and stems 
are also similar morpho-syntactically in that they 
constitute lexical categories in contemporary syntactic 
theories (Rice, 1993; 2000). These properties distinguish 
disjunct and stem morphemes from conjunct prefixes, which 
are functional items and composed of sounds from a highly 
restricted phonological inventory. The chief aim of this 
article is to give a natural account of the structural 
disparities between these two word domains, i.e., one that 
successfully relates the lex-cat/func-cat distinction to 
the availability of phonological structure.

A comprehensive analysis is given in Optimality Theory 
that explains this relationship with a development in the 
theory of faithfulness constraints, Positional Faithfulness 
(Beckman, 1998). In particular, lexical items are argued 
to have a privileged faithfulness status in the sense that 
they require a stronger form of identity to their lexical 
representation. Disjunct prefixes and stems are lexical 
items, and so they may have the full range of phonological 
structures because of their privileged faithfulness status. 
Conjunct prefixes, on the other hand, are functional 
categories, and therefore they have a more restricted phonological 
inventory. Additional support for the Positional 
Faithfulness analysis is found in the analysis of the 
phonological processes affecting the two domains. It is 
shown that the phonological processes characteristic of 
the two domains follow naturally as a consequence of the 
inventory restrictions intrinsic to each domain. These 
results distinguish the Positional Faithfulness analysis 
from other plausible analyses in terms of Positional 
Markedness ((Steriade, 1997), (Zoll, 1998)), which is 
shown to have a number of disadvantages

Keywords: positional faithfulness, markedness, positional markedness, Navajo,
Athabaskan

Areas: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax

Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=557