Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Laura J. Downing

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780199286393

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286393.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 23 June 2018

The Role of Phonology in Defining Canonical Form in MBT

The Role of Phonology in Defining Canonical Form in MBT

Chapter:
(p.201) 4 The Role of Phonology in Defining Canonical Form in MBT
Source:
Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology
Author(s):

Laura J. Downing (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286393.003.0004

The MBT approach developed in Chapter 3 defines the optimal minimal Root as a branching monosyllable. However, it is not difficult to find Roots which are either larger or smaller than this. The most common minimal word size is actually a non-branching CV syllable, even though a Root optimally branches. Roots in Diyari and other Australian languages are minimally disyllabic, rather than a branching monosyllable. This chapter shows that many of these exceptions can be straightforwardly accounted for in the MBT approach through the standard OT technique of variable constraint ranking. Syllable phonotactics can mask the morphologically-motivated branching requirements if phonotactic constraints are highly ranked. This can lead to ambiguity in the category of the canonical morpheme (is a non-branching monosyllable a Root? An Affix?), motivating further diachronic reduction.

Keywords:   word minimality, syllable phonotactics, Root, Affix, branching constraint, category ambiguity

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .