Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T18:55:07.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In defence of the autosegmental treatment of nonconcatenative morphology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Alemayehu Haile  and
Al Mtenje
Alemayehu Haile
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London and University of Malawi
Al Mtenje
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London and University of Malawi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of this paper is to defend the autosegmental account of nonconcatenative morphology originally proposed by McCarthy (1979, 1981), which has been seriously challenged by Hudson (1986). It is argued that an autosegmental analysis of nonconcatenative morphology such as that of Arabic still remains a better alternative than what Hudson proposes. We first present a brief overview of McCarthy's theory of non-concatenative morphology. We then review Hudson's criticisms of such an autosegmental approach to Arabic morphology and we end up by showing why his reanalysis does not constitute a better alternative than the criticized autosegmental account.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 433 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics. 7.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1986). Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in Luganda. In Sezer, E. & Wetzel, L. (eds), Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1981). Towards an autosegmental theory of accent: the case of Tonga. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1986). Tone in the Ci-Ruri present continuous. Working Papers from the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1986). Arabic root and pattern morphology without tiers. JL 22. 85–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingria, R. (1980). Compensatory lengthening as a metrical phenomenon. LIn 11. 465–495.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. (1978). Review of J. B. Hooper (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. Lg 54. 667–674.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. (1979). Generative phonology: theory and description. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (1983). Reduplication and prosodic structure. Ms. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1982). Re-reduplication. LIn 13. 435–480.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. LIn 12. 373–418.Google Scholar
Mtenje, A. (1985). Arguments for an autosegmental analysis of Chichewa vowel harmony. Lingua 66. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mtenje, A. (1986). Issues in the nonlinear phonology of Chichewa. Ph.D. dissertation. University College London.Google Scholar
Mtenje, A. (forthcoming). Compensatory lengthening in Chichewa – a nonlinear analysis. Glossa.Google Scholar
Odden, D. (1984). Stem tone assignment in Shona. In Clements, G. N. & Goldsmith, J. (eds), Autosegmental studies in Bantu Tone. Dordrecht: Foris. 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Sanders, G. A. (1970). Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in Linguistics 2. 460–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar