[PDF] Chapter 3 Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection

77797_7dm8.pdf

Chapter 3

Distribute

d Morpholog y an dthe Pieces of InflectionMorris Halle andAlec Marantz 1 Morpholog y wit h o r withou t Affixe s Th e las t fe w year s hav e see n th e emergenc e o f severa l clearl y articulate d alternativ e approache s t o morphology . On e suc h approac h rest s o n th e notio n tha t onl y stem s o f th e so-calle d lexica l categorie s (N , V , A ) ar e morphem e "pieces " i n th e traditiona l sense - connection s betwee n (bun - dle s of ) meanin g (features ) an d (bundle s of ) soun d (features) . Wha t loo k lik e affixe s o n thi s vie w ar e merel y th e by-produc t o f morphophonologica l rule s calle d wor d formatio n rule s (WFRs ) tha t ar e sensitiv e t o feature s associate d wit h th e lexica l categories , calle d lexemes . Suc h a n a-morphou s o r affixles s theory , adumbrate d b y Bear d (1966 ) an d Aronof f (1976) , ha s bee n articulate d mos t notabl y b y Anderso n (1992 ) an d i n majo r ne w studie s b y Aronof f (1992 ) an d Bear d (1991) . I n contrast , Liebe r (1992 ) ha s refine d th e traditiona l notio n tha t affixe s a s wel l a s lexica l stem s ar e "mor - pheme " piece s whos e lexica l entrie s relat e phonologica l for m wit h mean - in g an d function . Fo r Liebe r an d othe r "lexicalists " (see , e.g. , Jense n 1990)
, th e combinin g o f lexica l item s create s th e word s tha t operat e i n th e syntax . I n thi s pape r w e describ e an d defen d a thir d theor y o f morphol - ogy , Distribute d Morphology, 1 whic h combine s feature s o f th e affixles s an d th e lexicalis t alternatives . Wit h Anderson , Beard , an d Aronoff , w e endors e th e separatio n o f th e termina l element s involve d i n th e synta x fro m th e phonologica l realizatio n o f thes e elements . Wit h Liebe r an d th e lexicalists , o n th e othe r hand , w e tak e th e phonologica l realizatio n o f th e termina l element s i n th e synta x t o b e governe d b y lexica l (Vocabulary ) entrie s tha t relat e bundle s o f morphosyntacti c feature s t o bundle s o f pho - nologica l features . W e hav e calle d ou r approac h Distributed Morphology (hereafte r DM ) t o highligh t th e fac t tha t th e machiner y o f wha t traditionall y ha s bee n calle d morpholog y i s no t concentrate d i n a singl e componen t o f th e gram -

112Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

mar , bu t rathe r i s distribute d amon g severa l differen t components. 2 Fo r example , "wor d formation" - th e creatio n o f comple x syntacti c heads - ma y tak e plac e a t an y leve l o f gramma r throug h suc h processe s a s hea d movemen t an d adjunctio n and/o r merge r o f structurall y o r linearl y adja - cen t heads . Th e theor y i s a ne w developmen t o f idea s tha t w e hav e eac h bee n pursuin g independentl y fo r a numbe r o f years. 3 I t share s importan t trait s wit h traditiona l morpholog y (e.g. , i n it s insistenc e tha t hierarchi - call y organize d piece s ar e presen t a t al l level s o f representatio n o f a word) , bu t deviate s fro m traditiona l morpholog y i n othe r respect s (mos t espe - ciall y i n no t insistin g o n th e invarianc e o f thes e piece s bu t allowin g the m t o underg o change s i n th e cours e o f th e derivation) . A s note d above , th e theor y o f D M i s i n substantia l agreemen t wit h lexeme-base d morpholog y tha t a t th e syntacti c level s o f Logica l For m (LF) , D-Structur e (DS) , an d S-Structur e (SS ) termina l node s lac k phono - logica l feature s an d tha t the y obtai n thes e onl y a t th e leve l o f Morpho - logica l Structur e (MS ) (se e (1)) . D M part s compan y wit h lexeme-base d morpholog y wit h regar d t o it s affixles s aspect . A s discusse d i n greate r de - tai l below , lexeme-base d theor y treat s inflection s o f al l kind s a s morpho - syntacti c feature s represente d o n node s dominatin g wor d stem s an d see s inflectiona l affixe s a s th e by-produc t o f WFR s applyin g t o thes e stems .

Anderso

n (1992 ) motivate s thi s positio n b y citin g violation s o f "th e one - to-on e relatio n betwee n component s o f meanin g an d component s o f for m whic h i s essentia l t o th e classica l morpheme... " (p . 70)
. Rathe r tha n redefin e th e notio n o f morphem e s o a s t o allo w fo r particula r violation s o f th e one-to-on e relatio n betwee n meanin g an d phonologica l form , a s i n DM , Anderso n choose s t o eliminat e al l affixe s fro m morphology . O n it s face , Anderson' s proposa l contradict s no t onl y th e traditiona l approache s t o morphology , bu t als o muc h curren t practic e i n generativ e syntax , wher e inflection s suc h a s th e Englis h tens e o r possessiv e marker s ar e standardl y treate d a s head s o f functiona l categorie s an d mus t there - for e b e termina l nodes . Sinc e Anderso n neithe r offer s alternativ e analyse s no r indicate s an y intentio n t o revis e syntacti c theory , w e suppos e tha t h e accept s th e curren t vie w tha t i n th e syntacti c representations - i n LF , SS , an d DS - Tense , Possessive , an d othe r inflection s constitut e separat e nodes . Sinc e Anderso n recognize s n o affixa l morpheme s i n th e morphol - og y o r phonology , w e mus t assum e tha t o n hi s accoun t thes e inflectiona l morpheme s ar e eliminate d i n th e inpu t t o th e morphology , an d thei r mor - phosyntacti c feature s ar e transferre d t o th e ste m lexemes , s o tha t a t th e poin t a t whic h lexica l insertio n applies , th e termina l node s allo w fo r th e insertio n o f stem s exclusively . I t i s t o thes e affixles s stem s tha t Anderson' sDistributed Morphology113 WFR s appl y an d inser t (o r change ) phonologica l material . Anderson's theor y thu s cruciall y involve s a stag e wher e affixa l morpheme s ar e elimi - nated , followe d b y a stag e wher e man y o f th e sam e affixa l morpheme s ar e reintroduce d b y th e WFRs . I n man y case s th e hierarchica l structur e o f phonologica l materia l (affixes ) adde d b y th e WFR s recapitulate s th e hierarchica l organizatio n o f functiona l morpheme s i n th e syntax . I n Anderson' s theory , an y suc h par - alle l betwee n th e layerin g o f synta x an d th e layerin g o f phonolog y i s jus t a n acciden t o f th e organizatio n o f th e WFR s int o ordere d blocks , sinc e i n hi s theor y th e orderin g o f th e block s create s th e layerin g o f phonologica l materia l an d i s essentiall y independen t o f th e sort s an d source s o f mor - phosyntacti c feature s mentione d i n th e rules . Thi s direc t relationshi p be - twee n synta x an d morpholog y doe s no t obtai n everywhere : i t i s violated , fo r example , i n case s o f suppletio n suc h a s Englis h be, am, was, an d (a s show n i n sectio n 3.2 ) i t i s wit h suppletio n phenomen a tha t Anderson' s theor y deal s mos t readily. Sinc e suppletio n i s no t o f centra l importanc e i n th e morpholog y o f Englis h o r o f an y othe r language , th e approac h di d no t see m t o u s t o b e o n th e righ t track . Moreover , a s w e explai n below , w e fin d essentia l aspect s o f th e approac h unnecessar y an d eve n unworkable . Liebe r (1992 ) elaborate s th e traditiona l vie w tha t affixe s ar e morpheme s i n a versio n tha t bot h contradict s Anderson' s lexeme-base d approac h an d deviate s i n importan t respect s fro m DM . I n Lieber' s theory , affixe s an d stem s alik e ar e lexica l item s containin g bot h phonologica l an d morpho - syntacti c features . Cruciall y fo r thi s theory , thes e lexica l item s combin e t o creat e th e word s manipulate d by th e syntax . We agre e wit h Liebe r tha t bot h stem s an d affixe s ar e lexica l (fo r us , Vocabulary ) entrie s tha t connec t morphosyntacti c featur e bundle s wit h phonologica l featur e complexes .

However

, fo r D M th e assignmen t o f phonologica l feature s t o morpho - syntacti c featur e bundle s take s plac e afte r th e synta x an d doe s no t creat e o r determin e th e termina l element s manipulate d b y th e syntax . Thi s differ - enc e betwee n th e theorie s yield s tw o importan t contrast s betwee n D M an d Lieber' s lexica l morphology . First , sinc e i n D M syntacti c operation s combin e termina l node s t o creat e word s prio r t o Vocabular y insertion , th e theor y predict s tha t th e structur e o f words - th e hierarchica l locatio n o f affixes , an d s o on - i s determine d b y th e synta x an d no t b y subcategori - zatio n frame s carrie d b y eac h affix , a s o n Lieber' s account . Second , sinc e i n D M non e o f th e morphosyntacti c feature s involve d i n th e operatio n o f th e synta x i s supplie d b y Vocabular y insertion , th e Vocabular y entrie s ca n b e featurall y underspecified . O n thi s issue , D M agree s wit h a majo r in - sigh t o f Anderson' s theor y an d diverge s fro m Lieber' s theory , wher e th e

114Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

Vocabular

y entrie s o f affixe s mus t carr y enoug h feature s t o generat e th e prope r featur e structure s fo r th e synta x an d LF . Thi s aspec t o f Lieber' s approac h lead s t o difficultie s tha t ar e discusse d i n Marant z 1992
c an d Noye r 1992
a an d ar e therefor e no t include d here . 2 Distribute d Morpholog y D M adopt s th e basi c organizatio n o f a "principles-and-parameters " gram - mar , diagramme d i n (1) . Th e adde d leve l o f Morphologica l Structur e i s th e interfac e betwee n synta x an d phonology . M S i s a syntacti c representa - tio n tha t nevertheles s serve s a s par t o f th e phonology , wher e "phonology " i s broadl y conceive d a s th e interpretiv e componen t tha t realize s syntacti c representation s phonologically . (1 )

Representation

s a t eac h o f th e fiv e level s consis t o f hierarchica l grouping s o f termina l element s graphicall y represente d b y th e familia r tre e diagrams . Th e termina l element s o f th e tree s consis t o f complexe s o f grammatica l features . Thes e termina l element s ar e supplie d wit h phonologica l feature s onl y afte r Vocabular y insertio n a t M S (se e below) . Althoug h nothin g hinge s o n thi s terminolog y i n wha t follows , w e hav e chose n t o cal l th e termina l element s "morphemes " bot h befor e an d afte r Vocabular y inser - tion , tha t is , bot h befor e an d afte r the y ar e supplie d wit h phonologica l features . I f hierarchica l tre e structure s o f termina l node s (morphemes ) withi n bot h word s an d phrase s constitut e th e representation s a t ever y leve l o f grammatica l analysis , w e migh t expec t th e organizatio n o f phonologica l piece s (stem s an d affixes ) i n th e structur e a t P F t o b e isomorphi c t o th e hierarchica l arrangemen t o f morphosyntacti c termina l element s i n th e syntax . A s alread y remarked , i n man y instance s ther e seem s t o b e n o one-to-on e relatio n betwee n termina l element s i n th e synta x an d phono - logica l pieces , no r doe s th e organizatio n an d bracketin g o f th e phonologi -Distributed Morphology115 ca l piece s directl y reflec t th e syntacti c bracketing . Affixles s morpholog y constitute s on e respons e t o thi s observation ; a differen t respons e i s offere d b y DM . Instea d o f abandonin g th e notio n tha t affixe s ar e morphemes , D M recognize s tha t M S i s a leve l o f grammatica l representatio n wit h it s ow n principle s an d propertie s an d tha t th e apparen t mismatche s betwee n th e organizatio n o f th e morphosyntacti c piece s an d th e organizatio n o f th e phonologica l piece s ar e th e resul t o f well-motivate d operation s manipulatin g termina l element s a t thi s leve l an d a t D S an d SS . 2. 1 Mismatche s betwee n Synta x an d Morpholog y W e examin e her e som e o f th e importan t difference s betwee n th e termina l element s an d thei r organizatio n i n LF, SS , an d DS , o n th e on e hand , an d i n M S an d PF , o n th e other . W e assum e tha t i n LF , SS , an d D S ther e i s onl y hierarchica l nestin g o f constituents , bu t n o left-to-righ t orde r amon g th e morphemes . Th e linea r orde r o f morpheme s tha t al l sentence s exhibi t a t P F mus t therefor e b e establishe d b y th e rule s o r principle s tha t relat e S S t o M S (an d PF) . (Fo r som e discussion , se e Travi s 1989
, 1992
, Marant z 1989.
) Not e tha t w e d o no t assume , wit h Liebe r (1992) , tha t th e orderin g o f constituent s withi n word s an d th e orderin g o f word s withi n phrase s obe y th e sam e principles , wit h commo n notion s o f "head, " "comple - ment, " an d "specifier " triggerin g ordering s o f affixe s wit h respec t t o stem s an d o f phrase s wit h respec t t o syntacti c heads . Althoug h w e wil l no t argu e agains t Lieber' s positio n her e (bu t se e Anderso n 1992
: chap . 2 fo r som e relevan t consideration s an d th e critica l revie w i n Spencer , t o appear) , w e wil l assum e tha t a n affix' s statu s a s a prefix , suffix , o r infi x i s i n principl e independen t o f it s syntacti c role . A n additiona l sourc e o f th e note d lac k o f isomorphis m betwee n P F an d S S i s th e fac t tha t morpheme s ma y b e inserte d i n M S t o mee t uni - versa l and/o r language-specifi c well-formednes s conditions . Fo r example , subject-ver b agreemen t i s implemente d i n man y language s b y adjoinin g a n Ag r morphem e t o th e Tn s node ; feature s fro m th e subjec t ar e the n copie d ont o th e Ag r node . Case-number-gende r concor d i n Determine r

Phrase

s (DPs ) i s implemente d i n a simila r fashio n b y supplying , fo r exam - ple , case-numbe r suffixe s t o Adjectiv e an d Determine r node s an d copyin g feature s associate d wit h th e hea d nou n o f th e D P ont o them. 4 Thi s additio n o f termina l node s a t M S change s th e numbe r o f termina l element s tha t migh t fin d phonologica l realizatio n an d thu s contribute s t o th e note d lac k o f isomorphis m betwee n P F an d SS . Othe r grammatica l processe s als o ma y distur b th e one-to-on e relatio n betwee n termina l ele - ments in the syntax and terminal elements at MS: a terminal element may b e move d fro m on e positio n i n a tre e an d adjoine d t o a termina l elemen t i n anothe r positio n b y head-to-hea d movement ; structurall y adjacen t node s ma y b e merged ; siste r termina l node s ma y b e fuse d int o a singl e termina l node ; an d a give n nod e ma y b e fissione d int o two . (Fo r discus - sio n o f hea d movement , merger , fusion , an d fission , se e Bake r 1988
, Bone t 1991
, Koopma n 1983
, Marant z 1984,1988,1989
, 1992b
, Noye r 1992a
, an d below. ) W e distinguis h her e betwee n "merger " an d "fusion. " Merger , lik e head - to-hea d movement , join s termina l node s unde r a categor y nod e o f a hea d ( a "zero-leve l categor y node" ) bu t maintain s tw o independen t termina l node s unde r thi s categor y node . Thus , Vocabular y insertio n place s tw o separat e Vocabular y item s unde r th e derive d head , on e fo r eac h o f th e merge d termina l nodes . Merge r generall y join s a hea d wit h th e hea d o f it s complemen t XP ; se e th e reference s cite d above . Thus , lik e head-to-hea d movement , merge r form s a ne w wor d fro m head s o f independen t phrases ; bu t thes e independen t head s remai n separat e morpheme s withi n th e ne w derive d word . O n th e othe r hand , fusio n take s tw o termina l node s tha t ar e sister s unde r a singl e categor y nod e an d fuse s the m int o a singl e termina l node . Onl y on e Vocabular y ite m ma y no w b e inserted , a n ite m tha t mus t hav e a subset o f th e morphosyntacti c feature s o f th e fuse d node , includin g th e feature s fro m bot h inpu t termina l nodes . Unlik e merger , fusio n reduce s th e numbe r o f independen t morpheme s i n a tree . Sinc e bot h head-to-hea d movemen t an d merge r for m structure s i n whic h tw o termina l node s ar e sister s unde r a singl e categor y node , bot h ma y fee d fusion .

Example

s o f head-to-hea d movemen t includ e th e movemen t o f Englis h auxiliar y verb s t o Tens e (Tns) , an d Tn s t o C i n question s (se e sectio n 4) . Merge r combine s Tn s wit h th e mai n ver b i n English , a s illustrate d i n sectio n 4 . A simpl e exampl e o f morphem e fusio n i s th e singl e affi x signal - in g numbe r an d cas e encountere d i n man y Indo-Europea n languages ; suc h affixe s realiz e a termina l nod e tha t i s th e resul t o f th e fusio n o f independen t Cas e an d Numbe r nodes . I n contrast , numbe r an d cas e con - stitut e separat e phonologica l piece s i n Turkish , indicatin g tha t fusio n ha s no t applie d t o th e Numbe r an d Cas e node s here .

Morphem

e fissio n i s discusse d i n Marant z 1992
b an d Noye r 1992a
. A simpl e exampl e involve s th e pronomina l proclitic s o f Georgian , treate d b y

Anderso

n (1992 ) i n term s o f WFR s bu t analyzed , w e believ e correctly , a s pronomina l clitic s b y Nash-Hara n (1992) . Sampl e Georgia n ver b form sare listed in (2), in three subgroups.5 The first subgroup (2a-f) contains th e 3r d singula r objec t forms ; th e secon d subgrou p (2g-l ) contain s th e 3r d singula r subjec t forms ; an d th e thir d subgrou p (2m-q ) contain s form s wher e bot h subjec t an d objec t ar e eithe r 1 s t o r 2n d person . (2 ) Wit h 3r d perso n object : X draw(s ) 3r d perso n Wit h 3r d perso n subject : 3r d perso n draw s X h . gv-xatav- s 'h e draw s us ' j . g-xatav-(s)- t 'h e draw s yo u (pl) ' 1 . xatav- s 'h e draw s them 'g. m-xatav-s 'h e draw s me ' i . g-xatav- s 'h e draw s yo u (sg) ' k . xatav- s 'h e draw s him ' I-yo u an d you-m e form s m . g-xata v ' I dra w yo u (sg) ' n . m-xata v 'yo u (sg ) dra w me ' o . g-xatav- t 'w e dra w yo u (s g o r pl) ' o r ' I dra w yo u (pl) ' p . gv-xata v 'yo u (sg ) dra w us ' q . gv-xatav- t 'yo u (p l dra w us ' Th e mos t salien t featur e o f th e example s i n (2 ) i s tha t 3r d perso n argu - ment s d o no t surfac e i n preste m position , no r d o the y (generally ) deter - min e whe n th e plura l /-t / i s inserted. 6 T o captur e thes e facts , w e postulat e tha t i n preste m positio n thes e ver b form s contai n a Cliti c cluster , whic h syntacticall y attache s a s a siste r t o th e inflecte d verb . Th e Cliti c cluste r incorporate s unde r a singl e nod e al l th e 1s t an d 2n d perso n (pronominal ) argument s (an d certai n specia l 3r d perso n arguments ; se e not e 6) . Th e termina l node s i n th e Cliti c cluste r the n fus e int o a singl e termina l node .

118Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

Afte r fusion , th e M S structur e i s furthe r modifie d b y th e M S fissio n rul e i n (3) . Rul e (3 ) split s of f a plura l featur e fro m thi s fuse d Cliti c cluste r an d set s th e featur e u p a s a separat e termina l nod e (direc t an d indirec t object s i n

Georgia

n appea r i n th e dativ e case) . Th e Plura l doe s no t appea r a s a split-of f morphem e whe n th e Cliti c cluste r include s a 1s t perso n "dative " argumen t (whic h migh t b e a n indirec t objec t o r a "dativ e subject " a s wel l a s a direc t object) . Althoug h w e hav e capture d thi s fac t b y th e exceptio n state d i n rul e (3) , i t woul d hav e bee n possibl e t o obtai n th e sam e resul t b y writin g a furthe r fusio n rul e tha t undoe s th e effect s o f (3 ) fo r a 1s t perso n DA T argument . Nothin g i n th e analysi s woul d hav e t o b e change d unde r thi s option. 8 Th e splittin g of f o f th e Plura l a s a separat e morphem e occur s prio r t o th e insertio n o f th e Vocabular y entries , i n particula r prio r t o th e insertio n o f (5f) , whic h identifie s th e morphem e a s a suffix . Th e positionin g o f th e fissione d Plura l morphem e befor e th e ste m i n (3 ) i s therefor e purel y a mat - te r o f notationa l convenience : th e correc t placemen t o f th e Plura l mor - phem e t o th e righ t o f th e ste m i s implemente d b y th e Vocabular y entr y (5f) , a n entr y fo r a suffix .

Vocabular

y insertio n occur s afte r th e applicatio n o f al l M S rule s tha t modif y th e tree s generate d a t SS . I n th e cas e unde r discussion , Vocabular y insertio n applie s afte r incorporatio n o f 1s t an d 2n d perso n subject , object , an d indirec t objec t pronouns , th e fusio n o f thes e pronoun s int o a Cliti c termina l node , an d th e operatio n o f rul e (3) . Th e preinsertio n termina l node s correspondin g t o som e o f th e form s i n (2 ) ar e show n i n (4) ; th e letter s i n (4 ) refe r bac k t o th e correspondin g example s i n (2) .Distributed Morphology119 I n additio n t o th e fuse d Cliti c cluste r an d th e Stem , th e form s i n (4 ) includ e a fuse d Tns-Ag r node . Thi s Ag r agree s wit h th e NO M (or Erga - tive ) argumen t i n perso n an d number . Th e Vocabular y item s tha t ar e inserte d i n th e Tns-Ag r nod e ar e traditionall y organize d int o wha t ar e calle d "screeves. " Fo r th e example s unde r discussion , whe n th e Ag r i s 1s t o r 2n d person , th e Tns-Ag r i s 0 . Fo r 3r d singular , th e Tns-Ag r i s /-s/ , fo r 3r d plura l /-en/ . A readjustmen t rul e (se e sectio n 2.3 ) delete s 3r d singula r /-s / befor e plura l /-t/ . A n impoverishmen t rul e (se e th e en d o f thi s sectio n an d sectio n 5 ) delete s th e Plura l termina l nod e whe n i t follow s an y 3r d plura l Tns-Ag r node . Th e mai n functio n o f Vocabular y insertio n i s t o suppl y phoneti c fea - ture s t o th e differen t morpheme s i n (4) . Th e Vocabular y entrie s fo r th e Cliti c nod e an d th e [ + pl ] (fissioned ) nod e involve d i n th e derivatio n o f th e form s i n (2 ) ar e give n i n (5) . (5 ) Clitic

Plural

f. [ + pl] Th e Vocabular y entrie s i n competitio n fo r insertio n i n a particula r ter - mina l nod e automaticall y organiz e themselve s int o block s lik e tha t illus - trate d i n (5) , wher e entrie s ar e ordere d b y th e principl e tha t th e mos t specifie d entr y take s precedenc e ove r entrie s tha t ar e les s specified . A s note d b y Kiparsk y (1973) , thi s orderin g b y decreasin g complexit y wa s explicitly recognized already in A consequence of thi s orderin g principl e i s tha t i n (5 ) th e affi x marked , fo r example , [ + 1] , DAT , [ + pl ] (5a ) wil l tak e precedenc e ove r thos e marke d simpl y [+1] , DA T (5b ) an d [ + 1 ] (5d) . Similarly , th e affi x marke d [ + 2] , DA T (5c ) wil l tak e precedenc e i n insertio n ove r th e affi x marke d simpl y [ + 2 ] (5e) . Th e Paninia n elsewher e principl e a s no w understoo d fail s t o determin e th e precedenc e betwee n (5b ) an d (5c ) o r betwee n (5d ) an d (5e) . Competi - tio n betwee n thes e pair s coul d arise , i n principle , becaus e th e Cliti c mor - phem e incorporate s an d fuse s th e feature s o f subject , object , an d indirec t objec t arguments . Th e representatio n i n (4q ) indicate s ho w tw o set s o f agreemen t feature s ca n coexis t unde r a singl e Cliti c nod e i n Georgian . Bot h set s i n principl e migh t b e DAT . Noye r (1992a ) ha s argue d tha t hierarchica l relation s amon g particula r morphosyntacti c feature s impos e furthe r orderin g relation s amon g th e competin g entrie s abov e an d beyon d thos e tha t ar e impose d b y complexity . Thes e consideration s ma y provid e th e require d ordering . I f thi s shoul d tur n ou t no t t o b e th e case , th e correc t outpu t ca n b e obtaine d b y imposin g a n extrinsi c orde r o f prece - denc e betwee n th e tw o Vocabular y entrie s i n question , a s wa s don e i n (5 ) an d elsewher e i n thi s paper . Wha t i s crucia l her e i s tha t i n th e synta x w e ar e dealin g wit h bundle s o f morphosyntacti c features , whic h ar e not from th e Vocabular y i n an y importan t sense , an d tha t fo r thei r phonologica l realizatio n th e Vocabular y mus t b e searche d fo r th e underspecifie d entr y tha t bes t matche s th e morphosyntacti c feature s supplie d b y th e syntax . Onc e tha t entr y i s found , it s phonologica l an d othe r idiosyncrati c feature s ar e copie d int o th e morpheme . Fusio n an d fissio n o f morpheme s affec t th e correspondenc e betwee n piece s a t S S an d piece s i n th e phonology . I n addition , a t an y leve l o f gram - matica l analysis , th e featur e compositio n o f a morphem e ma y b e change d i n particula r contexts , leadin g agai n t o apparen t mismatche s betwee n th e synta x an d th e phonologica l affixes . Fo r example , quit e generally , feature s ar e delete d a t M S i n wha t Bone t (1991 ) call s "impoverishment. " W e wil lconsider several examples of impoverishment in the analysis of Potawatomi i n sectio n 5. 9 2. 2 Vocabular y Insertio n Examine d W e hav e show n tha t i n D M th e ordering , number , featur e composition , an d hierarchica l positionin g o f termina l node s ma y chang e i n th e deriva - tio n o f MS , bu t onl y i n highl y constraine d an d fairl y wel l understoo d ways . W e emphasiz e tha t th e operatio n o f morpholog y i s constraine d b y substantiv e universal s ( a theor y o f features ) an d localit y condition s o n merger , fusion , fission , an d featur e interaction s betwee n morphemes ; i n th e absenc e o f suc h motivate d constraints , th e theor y lose s it s empirica l content . Althoug h th e termina l node s ma y chang e a t MS , perhap s th e mos t strikin g differenc e betwee n S S an d M S derive s fro m th e systemati c differenc e i n th e typ e o f feature s foun d i n th e termina l node s i n th e tw o structures . A s note d above , i n conformit y wit h th e "separation " theor y o f Bear d (whic h find s trace s bac k t o Chomsky' s (1965 ) treatmen t o f inflec - tiona l morphology) , i t i s assume d her e tha t a t LF , DS , an d S S termina l node s consis t exclusivel y o f morphosyntactic/semanti c feature s an d lac k phonologica l features. 1 0 Th e morphosyntacti c feature s a t thes e level s ar e draw n fro m a se t mad e availabl e b y Universa l Gramma r (w e ar e unawar e o f an y argument s tha t language-specifi c feature s ar e necessar y a t thes e syntacti c levels) . Th e semanti c feature s an d propertie s o f termina l node s create d a t D S wil l als o b e draw n fro m Universa l Gramma r an d perhap s fro m language-particula r semanti c categorie s o r concepts . W e assum e tha t th e Vocabular y o f a languag e play s n o rol e i n th e creatio n o f termina l node s a t DS . Tha t is , th e particula r se t o f universa l and/o r language-particula r semanti c an d syntacti c feature s chose n fo r a termina l nod e i s no t constraine d b y whethe r o r no t tha t se t o f feature s appear s i n an y Vocabular y entr y i n th e language . Th e bundle s o f mor - phosyntacti c an d semanti c feature s tha t constitut e morpheme s a t DS , SS , an d L F ar e mor e o r les s freel y formed . Althoug h th e featur e complexe s a t thes e thre e level s mus t satisf y al l universa l an d language-specifi c con - straint s o n combinin g suc h features , the y ar e no t necessaril y identica l wit h th e featur e complexe s o f actuall y occurrin g Vocabular y item s o f th e lan - guage . This , however , wil l no t preven t Vocabular y insertio n fro m takin g place , sinc e insertio n require s onl y tha t th e featur e bundl e o f th e Vocabu - lar y ite m b e nondistinc t fro m th e feature s o f th e termina l nod e a t M S tha t serve s a s th e sit e o f insertion . Th e competitio n amon g differen t Vocabu - lar y item s nondistinc t fro m th e feature s o f a termina l nod e a t M S ensure s that the Vocabulary item that matches the most features of the node will b e inserted .

Vocabular

y item s ma y therefor e b e underspecifie d fo r th e morpho - syntacti c featur e complexe s tha t the y realiz e (se e Lumsde n 199
2 o n thi s point) . Fo r example , th e Vocabular y entr y fo r th e Englis h ver b sink i s featurall y no t specifie d fo r th e distinctio n betwee n it s transitiv e (caus - ative ) an d intransitiv e (inchoative ) variants , althoug h a t LF , SS , an d D S a give n sentenc e ma y hav e th e feature s correspondin g t o eithe r th e on e o r th e other . Similarly , a s discusse d below , th e Englis h pas t participl e endin g /-d / i n / had played tennis all day wil l correspon d onl y t o th e featur e [ + past ] i n it s Vocabular y entr y althoug h i n th e exampl e jus t give n i t i s inserte d a t a nod e wit h th e featur e [ +participle ] i n additio n t o th e featur e [ + past] . I t i s assume d her e tha t th e entrie s tha t mak e u p th e Vocabular y o f a languag e ar e eac h compose d o f tw o distinc t set s o f features : phonologica l an d morphosyntactic/semantic . Thus , phonologica l feature s ar e supplie d t o morpheme s onl y a t M S an d th e mechanis m responsibl e fo r thi s i s

Vocabular

y insertion . A s note d above , fo r a give n Vocabular y entr y t o b e "inserted " i n som e S S morpheme , non e o f it s morphosyntacti c feature s ca n conflic t wit h a morphosyntacti c featur e presen t i n SS ; th e Vocabular y entr y mus t contai n a subse t o f th e morphosyntacti c feature s o f th e termi - na l node . Lik e th e operatio n o f featur e copyin g crucia l t o agreemen t an d concor d a t MS , Vocabular y insertio n a t M S i s subjec t t o th e constrain t tha t i t canno t modif y alread y existin g featur e values . O n thi s view , a s i n Anderson' s model , th e phonologica l affixe s an d stem s tha t mak e u p comple x word s ar e underspecifie d wit h respec t t o morphosyntacti c features . Since , unlik e i n th e lexicalis t model s o f Liebe r an d others , i n D M th e phonologica l piece s ar e no t require d t o carr y al l th e feature s necessar y t o explai n th e syntacti c behavio r o f th e word s the y create , the y ma y b e specifie d onl y fo r thos e feature s tha t determin e whic h morphem e i s inserte d a t whic h termina l node. 1 1 However , a s i n Lieber' s mode l bu t no t i n affixles s theories , th e Vocabular y item s migh t com e wit h categoria l an d subcategoria l informatio n tha t i s no t par t o f th e morpho - syntacti c representatio n prio r t o Vocabular y insertio n an d tha t affect s th e furthe r phonologica l realizatio n i n th e word . Fo r example , inserte d affixe s o r stem s migh t belon g t o inflectiona l classe s tha t conditio n th e insertio n o f othe r affixe s o r th e operatio n o f morphologicall y conditione d phono - logica l rule s (her e calle d "readjustmen t rules" ; fo r examples , se e below) . Sinc e Vocabular y entrie s diffe r fro m morpheme s a t LF , DS , an d S S i n that , i n additio n t o morphosyntacti c features , the y posses s a se t o f phono -logical features, the Vocabulary can be regarded as the repository of the knowledg e tha t speaker s hav e abou t th e interrelationshi p betwee n th e morphosyntacti c featur e bundl e characterizin g a morphem e an d it s pho - nologica l features , tha t is , abou t th e mappin g o f morphosyntacti c feature s ont o complexe s o f phonologica l features . 2. 3 Allomorph y A s w e hav e jus t noted , a variet y o f change s ca n affec t morpheme s i n th e cours e o f derivin g th e M S representation , creatin g a hierarchica l structur e o f termina l element s relate d i n a principle d manne r to , bu t no t identica l with , th e hierarchica l structur e o f suc h element s a t SS . Vocabular y items , liste d accordin g t o thei r morphosyntacti c categories , compet e t o realiz e th e resultin g termina l element s i n Vocabular y insertion . Thi s immediatel y raise s th e issu e o f ho w t o determin e th e winne r i n an y suc h competition . Tw o type s o f competitio n ca n b e distinguishe d i n Vocabular y insertion : context-fre e an d context-dependen t (or conditioned allomorphy). W e dis - cus s th e tw o i n turn . I n context-fre e insertion , w e fin d th e Vocabular y entrie s whos e categor y i s compatibl e wit h th e categor y o f th e termina l elemen t bein g phonologi - call y realize d an d whos e feature s ar e compatibl e wit h th e se t o f morpho - syntacti c feature s tha t th e synta x an d morpholog y hav e generate d o n thi s termina l element . A s noted , thi s searc h wil l i n som e instance s involv e competitio n amon g differen t entrie s fo r th e chanc e t o spel l ou t a particu - la r se t o f features , wher e th e entrie s diffe r onl y i n th e feature s the y realiz e (tha t is , i n thei r "substantive " features) . Lik e context-fre e Vocabular y insertion , conditione d allomorph y als o involve s a choic e amon g alternativ e Vocabular y items . However , th e choic e i n thi s cas e i s no t amon g item s tha t diffe r i n thei r substantiv e morphosyntacti c features , bu t amon g item s tha t diffe r i n thei r state d in - sertio n context s an d phonologica l features . Fo r example , i n Englis h th e pas t tens e suffi x 0 i s selecte d b y th e so-calle d strong ver b stem s (e.g. , put, beat), wherea s weak verb s selec t th e suffi x /-t / o r /-d / (e.g. , dwelt, played). Th e substantiv e feature s ( [ + past] , etc. ) o f th e /-t/ , /-d/ , an d 0 allomorph s ar e th e same ; the y diffe r onl y i n contextua l features . A s i n context-independen t insertion , th e choic e amon g competin g allomorph s i n conditione d allomorph y i s agai n determine d b y th e Paninia n principle , understoo d her e a s givin g precedenc e t o th e allomorp h appearin g i n th e mos t complex , mos t highl y specifie d contex t ove r allomorph s appearin g i n les s comple x contexts . Th e pas t tens e allomorph s ar e therefor e ordere d a s i n (6) . (Thes e entrie s wil l b e revise d i n (8). ) Here the and /-t/ allomorphs of the past tense have precedence over the /-d / allomorph , because 0 an d /-t / impos e condition s o n th e ver b stem , wherea s /-d / i s inserte d elsewhere . Th e /-d / i s thu s literall y th e defaul t en - tr y fo r [ + past ] Tns . (A s th e entrie s i n (6 ) ar e currentl y written , th e order - in g betwee n th e 0 an d /-t / allomorph s i s no t determine d b y complexity. ) Fo r man y termina l node s (e.g. , th e Englis h Tn s node ; se e sectio n 3) , th e competitio n amon g Vocabular y item s wil l includ e competitio n amon g item s wit h th e sam e feature s an d differen t environments , a s i n (6) , an d simultaneousl y amon g item s wit h differen t features , a s i n (5) . W e propos e tha t consideratio n o f th e substantiv e feature s realize d b y a Vocabular y entr y take s precedenc e i n th e competitio n ove r contextua l consideration s s o tha t al l Vocabular y item s tha t realiz e th e sam e feature s (e.g. , th e thre e i n (6) ) ar e ordere d i n a bloc k togethe r relativ e t o Vocabular y item s tha t realiz e differen t features . Withi n eac h suc h block , th e specificit y o f th e environmen t determine s relativ e ordering , a s jus t explained . 3 Vocabular y Insertio n versu s Readjustmen t 3. 1 Englis h Ver b Inflectio n Th e phonologica l informatio n containe d i n th e Vocabular y entrie s i s no t sufficien t t o ensur e tha t i n al l case s th e correc t phonologica l outpu t wil l b e generated . A s suggeste d i n Hall e 199
0 an d elsewhere , th e remainin g par t o f th e informatio n abou t th e phonologica l for m o f morpheme s i s pro - vide d b y a se t o f readjustment rules. 12 Thi s distinctio n betwee n thes e tw o source s o f phonologica l informatio n parallel s th e traditiona l distinctio n betwee n morphophonemi c alternation s (i.e. , allomorph s relate d b y a se t o f morphologicall y conditione d phonologica l rules) , o n th e on e hand , an d suppletio n an d conditione d allomorphy , o n th e other . T o clarif y th e natur e o f thi s distinction , w e examin e th e inflectio n o f Englis h verbs . Th e inflectiona l affixe s o f th e Englis h ver b are , i n part , surfac e manifes - tation s o f th e differen t complexe s o f morphosyntacti c feature s tha t ma y b e generate d a t th e termina l I(nflection ) nod e i n th e I P constituen t (or , mor e specifically , a t th e termina l T(ense ) nod e o f th e T P constituent ; fo r a n exampl e showin g th e positio n o f thi s nod e i n sentence s an d som e dis - cussion , se e (13)) . Disregardin g her e an d belo w th e ver b be, th e fiv e princi - pa l part s o f th e Englis h verba l inflectio n ar e illustrate d i n (7) .(7) Past participle beat-en put dwel-t play-ed Pas t finit e bea t pu t dwel- t play-e d

Nonpas

t finit e 3r d s g beat- s put- s dwell- s play- s

Nonpas

t participl e beat-in g putt-in g dwell-in g play-in g

Nonpas

t finit e bea t pu t dwel l pla y Th e featur e complexe s tha t ca n occup y th e I nod e a t th e poin t o f

Vocabular

y insertio n ar e mad e u p a t leas t o f th e morphosyntacti c fea - ture s [±past] , [ +participle] , t o whic h i n [ - participle ] bundle s ar e adde d th e si x number-perso n complexe s (Chomsky' s ^-features ) tha t expres s subject-ver b agreemen t i n Englis h (1st , 2nd , an d 3r d perso n i n singula r an d plural) . Specifically , a n Ag r morphem e i s adde d t o [-participle ] I node s a t MS , an d th e Ag r morphem e i s fuse d wit h th e I morphem e int o a singl e node . Th e fuse d I nod e ca n thu s accommodat e 2 [-(-participle ] bun - dle s ( [ + past] ) an d 2 ([±past] ) x 6 (fo r agreemen t features ) [ - participle ] bundles , fo r a tota l o f 1 4 differen t featur e bundles .

Examinatio

n o f (7 ) reveal s tha t ther e ar e thre e phoneticall y distinc t suffixe s i n th e nonpas t forms : /-ing/ , /-z/ , an d 0 . An d ther e ar e fou r pho - netically distinct suffixes in the past forms: /-n/, /-t/, and /-d/. These seve n suffixe s compet e fo r insertio n int o th e I node , whic h wil l contai n on e o f th e 1 4 featur e bundle s jus t described . A s show n b y th e form s i n th e firs t lin e o f (7) , ther e ar e fou r distinc t pas t participl e suffixes : /-n/ , 0 , /-t/ , an d /-d/ . Th e las t thre e ar e identica l wit h th e finit e pas t suffixes . I t i s wort h notin g tha t o f th e 5 8 Englis h verb s tha t tak e /-n / i n th e pas t participle , 9 hav e th e defaul t /-d / suffi x i n th e finit e pas t (do, ^hew , ^prove , ^sew , ^shear , show, ^sow , ^swell , ^strew) , 1 take s th e /-t / suffi x (go-ne/wen-t), an d 4 8 for m th e finit e pas t tens e wit h th e 0 suffix. 1 3 I n othe r words , althoug h verb s tha t tak e th e /-n / suffi x i n th e pas t participl e manifes t a preferenc e fo r th e 0 finit e pas t suffix , th e prefer - enc e i s no t absolute . Sinc e th e verb s tha t tak e /-n / i n th e pas t participl e shar e n o othe r grammatical , morphological , o r semanti c property , ther e i s n o justificatio n fo r treatin g thes e verb s a s belongin g t o a specia l inflec - tiona l clas s o f thei r own , a s wa s don e i n (6). 1 4 Th e lis t o f verb s tha t choos e th e /-n / suffi x i n th e pas t participl e wil l therefor e b e include d i n th e Vocabu - lar y entr y o f thi s suffi x a s a disjunctiv e lis t i n a contextua l featur e fo r th e suffi x (se e (8)) . Th e fac t tha t i n almos t al l othe r verb s th e pas t participl e for m i s identica l wit h th e finit e pas t for m i s expresse d i n (8 ) indirectly , b y th e absenc e o f a separat e pas t participl e entr y othe r tha n /-n/ . I n mos t cases , then , a nod e wit h th e feature s [ + past] , [ + participle ] wil l b e realize d b y a n affi x wit h onl y th e [ + past ] feature .

126Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

Severa

l o f th e verb s tha t tak e th e /-n / suffi x i n th e pas t participl e hav e a n alternativ e for m wit h th e defaul t /-d / suffix , wher e th e alternatio n i s manifeste d sometime s b y differen t speakers , sometime s b y a singl e speaker . W e hav e liste d suc h stem s wit h th e diacriti c ^ t o indicat e tha t the y optionall y tak e /-d/ . Wheneve r Vocabular y insertio n fail s t o inser t th e /-n / suffi x afte r suc h ^ stems , th e defaul t /-d / suffi x wil l automaticall y b e inserted , unles s th e ste m appear s amon g thos e liste d wit h on e o f th e othe r pas t suffixe s i n (8) . W e leav e ope n th e question s o f whethe r ther e i s tru e optionalit y withi n th e gramma r o f a n individua l speake r an d o f wha t th e forma l treatmen t o f optionalit y shoul d be ; w e emphasiz e her e onl y tha t i f th e firs t (mos t highl y specified ) Vocabular y item - /-n/ - competin g fo r th e Tn s nod e i s no t chose n fo r on e o f th e "optional " ^ stems , th e remainin g Vocabular y item s i n (8 ) wil l yiel d th e correc t "alternative " pas t participl e form . Th e seve n Vocabular y item s competin g fo r insertio n unde r th e fuse d Tns-Ag r nod e ar e al l suffixe s an d hav e th e representation s i n (8). 1 5 Th e entrie s i n (8 ) ar e liste d i n th e orde r o f decreasin g complexit y o f th e condition s o n thei r insertion , wher e thi s ca n b e determined . Recal l tha t substantiv e feature s tak e precedenc e ove r contextua l feature s fo r determi - natio n o f complexity , s o a n entr y wit h th e feature s [ + past , + participle ] woul d tak e precedenc e ove r an y entr y wit h th e featur e [ + past ] eve n i f th e forme r wer e inserte d i n an y environmen t an d th e latte r restricte d t o cer - tai n stems . Sinc e th e 0 an d /-t / pas t suffixe s ar e o f equa l complexity , bot h containin g th e [ + past ] substantiv e featur e an d a n environmen t feature , the y ar e no t ordere d b y complexity . Sinc e eac h contain s a differen t se t o f verb s i n it s environment , n o orderin g i s required . Th e orderin g amon g pas t suffixe s a s a group , [3sg ] /-z/ , an d [ +participle ] /-ing / i s als o no t determine d b y complexity . Here , though , th e orderin g matters . W e d o no tDistributed Morphology127 wan t t o inser t th e [ + participle ] /-ing / i n a [ + past , + participle ] node . No r d o w e wan t t o inser t /-z / i n a [ + past ] nod e tha t i s [3sg] . Perhap s a universa l hierarch y o f tens e > aspec t > agreemen t migh t orde r thes e affixes ; otherwise , thei r orderin g mus t b e stipulate d i n th e manne r show n i n (8) . A s note d above , th e fac t tha t a give n termina l nod e contain s morpho - syntacti c feature s tha t ar e absen t i n a particula r Vocabular y entr y wil l no t bloc k insertio n o f thi s ite m a s lon g a s th e additiona l morphosyntacti c feature s ar e nondistinc t fro m th e feature s i n th e Vocabular y entry . Fo r example , th e [ + past ] /-d / wil l b e inserte d i n a t + past , + participle ] nod e a s lon g a s th e ste m i s no t liste d i n an y o f th e [ + past , + participle ] o r [ + past ] entrie s i n (8) . Afte r insertion , th e nod e wil l stil l b e [ + past , + participle ] althoug h th e Vocabular y entr y itsel f ha d onl y th e featur e [+past] . Sinc e i n languag e ther e i s a n arbitrar y relatio n betwee n th e morpho - syntacti c an d phonologica l feature s o f a Vocabular y ite m (Saussure' s arbitraire d u signe), i t i s no t surprisin g tha t th e relationshi p betwee n mor - phosyntacti c an d phonologica l feature s i s many-to-many . Thus , phono - logica l 0 i s th e phonologica l realizatio n o f tw o distinc t set s o f feature s i n (8) , an d th e [ + past ] morphem e i s represente d b y 0 , /-t/ , an d /-d/ . A s th e example s i n (9 ) show , th e pas t participl e an d pas t form s fre - quentl y diffe r fro m nonpas t form s and/o r fro m eac h othe r i n th e phono - logica l compositio n o f th e stem . ii . yel l - yell-e d - yell-e d Th e suffixe s i n (8 ) diffe r i n th e exten t t o whic h the y trigge r phonologica l change s i n th e stems . Fo r example , th e /-n / suffi x trigger s change s i n 5 6 o f th e 5 8 stem s tha t tak e it , wherea s fo r 0 an d /-t / th e figure s ar e 10 3 ou t o f 13 1 an d 1 6 ou t o f 40
, respectively . B y contrast , o f th e severa l thousan d stem s tha t tak e th e /-d / pas t suffix , onl y 1 3 underg o ste m changes . Specifi - cally , a s show n i n (10) , th e /-d / pas t suffi x replace s th e ste m rim e wit h shor t /u / i n fou r verb s (should, would, could, stood), wit h shor t /i / i n on e ver b (did), an d wit h shor t /e / i n on e ver b (said). Th e sam e suffi x round s

128Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

an d back s th e syllabi c nucleu s i n tw o instance s (sol-d, tol-d), bu t shorten s th e nucleu s i n onl y thre e stem s (fle-d, hear-d, sho-d). Finally , th e stem s make an d have los e thei r fina l consonan t befor e th e /-d / suffix . Unlik e allo - morph y resultin g fro m th e choic e o f contextuall y distinguishe d Vocabu - lar y entries , th e ste m allomorphie s unde r discussio n her e resul t fro m th e operatio n o f readjustmen t rule s tha t hav e th e for m o f phonologica l rule s an d appl y t o morpheme s afte r Vocabular y insertion . Th e readjustment s describe d abov e ar e give n mor e formall y i n (10) . (10 ) a . Rim e - » /u / / X [ + past ] Th e readjustment s induce d i n th e ste m b y th e /-t / suffi x ar e somewha t les s varie d tha n thos e summarize d i n (10) . Her e stem s endin g i n /d / delet eDistributed Morphology129 th e stem-fina l consonant - sen d - > sen0-t - and stem s wit h rime s endin g i n a dorsa l (velar ) obstruen t (o r tha t historicall y deriv e fro m suc h stems ) replac e th e rim e wit h th e lo w vowe l /o/ - brin g - » brough-t. Non e o f th e othe r stem s i s subjec t t o ste m readjustmen t befor e th e /-t / suffix , onc e accoun t i s take n o f th e fac t tha t ste m vowe l shortenin g an d fina l obstruen t devoicin g i n form s suc h a s mean-t, kep-t, lef-t, los-t ar e du e t o genera l phonologica l rule s whos e effect s i n Englis h ar e als o foun d outsid e ver b inflection - fo r example , i n bread-th, dep-th, wid-th. Th e readjustmen t rule s triggere d b y th e /-n / pas t participl e an d th e 0 pas t suffixe s ar e considerabl y mor e comple x tha n thos e triggere d b y /-d / o r /-t/ . Sinc e thes e fact s ad d littl e t o a n understandin g o f th e issue s unde r discussion , the y hav e bee n omitte d here. 1 6 Ther e ar e tw o verb s fo r whic h th e relationshi p betwee n th e allomorph s i n th e [ - past ] an d [ + past ] i s entirel y arbitrary . Thes e ar e go/wen-t an d th e archai c an d highl y literar y work/wrough-t (/rot/) . Fo r thes e verbs , tw o differen t Vocabular y entrie s wit h th e sam e substantiv e feature s wil l b e listed ; the y wil l diffe r i n tha t on e wil l contai n th e contextua l featur e [ [ + past , - participle]] . Wit h th e exceptio n o f thes e tw o verbs , th e rela - tion s amon g variant s o f a give n ste m i n th e differen t morphologica l con - text s ca n b e characterize d b y mean s o f readjustmen t rule s lik e thos e i n (10) , rule s tha t satisf y th e sam e forma l constraint s a s ordinar y phonologi - ca l rule s (an d migh t eve n b e ordere d amon g th e phonologica l rules ; se e th e discussio n o f "allomorph y rules " i n Davi s 1991)
. 3. 2 Englis h Inflectio n an d Affixles s Morpholog y I n th e theor y o f affixles s morphology , th e termina l strin g a t th e inpu t t o th e morpholog y consist s exclusivel y o f lexemes , tha t is , o f wor d stems . Suc h informatio n a s tha t a nou n i s plura l i s represente d a t thi s stag e b y feature s assigne d t o th e nontermina l nod e dominatin g th e noun . Ulti - mately , th e plura l feature s ar e spelle d ou t b y WFRs. 1 7 Th e WFR s constitut e a homogeneou s set . Thi s i s a n importan t respec t i n whic h affixles s morpholog y differ s fro m DM , wher e th e phonologi - ca l shape s o f word s ar e accounte d fo r b y rule s an d processe s belongin g t o differen t classe s subjec t t o differen t constraints . A s illustrate d above ,

Vocabular

y insertio n i s responsibl e fo r certai n phonologica l aspect s o f a n utterance , wherea s othe r aspect s ar e accounte d fo r b y th e rathe r differen t se t o f impoverishmen t an d readjustmen t rules . I n thi s sectio n w e examin e th e wa y i n whic h th e homogeneit y o f WFR s i n th e affixles s theor y affect s th e treatmen t o f th e familia r fact s o f Englis h nou n inflection . Anderson notes that WFRs "operate to map... lexical stems onto fully inflecte d surfac e words " (p . 122)
. Thi s procedure , however , fail s t o "pro - vid e a n accoun t o f th e complementarit y o f regula r an d irregula r mode s o f inflectiona l marking . Fo r instance , w e mus t avoi d applyin g a rul e fo r a regula r formatio n suc h a s th e Englis h plura l i n /-z / t o a n ite m whic h i s alread y lexicall y specifie d fo r th e sam e properties . Thus , sinc e th e (irregu - lar ) plura l o f o x i s oxen w e mus t no t produc e *oxes o r *oxens" (p . 123)
. T o achiev e thi s complementarit y betwee n regula r an d irregula r inflec - tion , Anderso n introduce s tw o specia l principles . H e explain s tha t [o]ften. . .mor e tha n on e phonologica l ste m wil l shar e th e sam e synta x an d semantic s Wher e mor e tha n on e ste m make s u p th e lexica l ste m se t o f a give n lexica l item , th e principl e i n (19 ) govern s th e choic e amon g them . (19 ) I n interpretin g a give n Morphosyntacti c Representatio n M , fro m amon g th e stem s i n th e lexica l se t S o f a give n lexica l item , onl y tha t ste m S , whic h i s characterize d fo r th e maxima l subse t o f th e feature s compatibl e wit h M ma y serv e a s th e basi s o f a n inflecte d for m {S , M} . (p . 133)
1 8

Anderso

n note s tha t principl e (19 ) allow s hi m t o accoun t fo r th e absenc e o f form s lik e *oxes i n English . Suc h a form , i f i t existed , woul d b e th e resul t o f applyin g th e regula r plura l rul e s o a s t o ad d /-z / t o th e ste m /aks/ . Bu t i n fac t th e ste m /aks / i s no t availabl e t o interpre t th e positio n whos e Morphosyntacti c Representatio n contain s th e feature s [ + Noun , + Plural] , becaus e th e onl y ste m se t containin g /aks / als o contain s /aksan/ . Sinc e thi s latte r ste m i s characterize d fo r a large r subse t o f th e feature s [ + Noun , + Plural ] tha n i s /aks/ , th e principl e i n (19 ) require s u s t o us e onl y /akssn / an d no t /aks / t o interpre t suc h a position , (p . 133
) B y enterin g oxen a s a ste m wit h th e feature s [ + Noun , + Plural] , Ander - so n ha s i n effec t accounte d fo r thi s irregularit y b y mean s o f suppletion , becaus e ther e i s n o wa y i n whic h hi s solutio n take s accoun t o f th e partia l identit y o f oxen an d ox. Instea d o f bein g compose d o f th e latte r tw o stems , th e ste m se t coul d equall y wel l hav e containe d o x an d an y phoneti - call y wel l forme d strin g o f phonemes . I t i s a n acciden t o f Englis h tha t i t contain s n o trul y suppletiv e pair s o f singular-plura l nou n stems .

Althoug

h principl e (19 ) rule s ou t *oxes, i t fail s t o rul e ou t *oxens.

Accordin

g t o Anderson , [fjhi s suggest s tha t anothe r principl e o f disjunctio n (o r "blocking" ) i s a t wor k here . Thi s principle.. . share s a n obviou s famil y resemblanc e wit h th e principle s i n (18 ) an d (19) , sinc e al l o f thes e condition s enforc e th e precedenc e o f specifi c case s ove r genera l ones . (20 ) Whe n a rul e R o f th e gramma r woul d appl y t o a ste m S o n th e basi s o f th e feature s F o f a give n positio n t o b e interpreted , applicatio n o f R i s blocked , i f F constitute s a subse t o f th e lexica l specification s o f S .The absence of *oxens... then follows directly. In interpreting a position with th e morphosyntacti c feature s [ + Noun , + Plural] , w e hav e alread y see n tha t onl y th e ste m /aksan / i s available . I n orde r t o deriv e /aksanz / i t woul d b e necessar y t o appl y th e regula r plura l rul e t o appen d /-z / t o /akssn/ . Thi s i s prevente d b y (20) , however , sinc e th e feature s tha t thi s rul e refer s t o ar e precisel y [ + Noun , + Plural] , a subse t o f th e lexica l feature s of/akssn/ . (p . 134
)

Principl

e (20 ) rule s ou t form s wher e a specia l ste m allomorp h i s selecte d fo r insertio n i n th e contex t o f a particula r featur e whil e a secon d WF R affixe s somethin g t o th e ste m i n th e contex t o f th e sam e feature . Anderso n remarks , "I f genuin e case s o f suc h 'doubl e marking ' d o indee d exist , thi s woul d impl y tha t th e scop e o f th e principl e propose d her e a s (20 ) mus t b e limite d i n som e wa y tha t i s no t ye t understood " (p . 134)
. I n fact , form s wit h suc h "doubl e marking " ar e widel y attested . Severa l example s fro m Englis h ar e foun d i n (11) . (11 ) a . live- s bath- s house- s b . broke- n froze- n drive- n go-n e do-n e c . i . bough- t caugh- t taugh- t though- t ii . buil- t sen- t wen- t len- t I n (lla ) th e stem-fina l consonan t i s voice d befor e th e plura l suffix . I n (lib ) th e ste m vowe l i s modifie d an d th e suffi x /-n / i s adde d a s well . I n (lie ) th e pas t /-t / i s suffixed ; i n addition , th e rim e i s replace d b y /o / i n ( 1 lei ) an d th e stem-fina l consonan t /d / i s delete d i n ( 1 Icii) . Sinc e genuin e case s o f "doubl e marking " ar e quit e common , Ander - son' s principl e (20 ) canno t b e maintained . Withou t (20) , however , hi s accoun t o f Englis h plura l formatio n wil l no t work . I t shoul d b e note d tha t nothin g i n Anderson' s theor y prevent s hi m fro m dealin g wit h th e thre e set s o f example s i n (11 ) a s instance s o f suppletion . A s note d above , h e propose s t o trea t ox/oxen a s a n instanc e o f supple - tion , tha t is , a s a se t o f "phonologicall y distinc t stems.. . eac h associate d wit h it s ow n (partial ) se t o f morphosyntacti c properties " (p . 133)
. I n th e cas e o f ox/oxen thi s treatmen t obscure s th e fac t tha t excep t fo r th e /n / th e tw o form s ar e phonologicall y identical . Sinc e onl y tw o o r thre e noun s i n th e languag e tak e suc h non- 0 irregula r plura l endings , on e migh t b e incline d t o swee p thes e example s unde r th e proverbia l rug . Th e poin t mad e b y th e example s i n (11 ) i s no t onl y tha t ther e ar e additiona l case s tha t mus t b e similarl y swep t unde r th e rug , bu t als o tha t phonologica l "modifications " produce d b y wha t w e hav e calle d Vocabular y insertio n (th e additio n o f phonologica l material ) ar e separat e fro m an d indepen - den t o f thos e produce d b y readjustmen t rule s (whic h ma y chang e an d

132Morris Halle & Alec Marantz

delet e features , a s wel l a s ad d them) . A n approac h suc h a s Anderson's , whic h denie s th e existenc e o f thi s distinction , i s unable - a s a matte r o f principle - t o distinguis h case s o f tota l suppletio n suc h a s be/were fro m case s o f partia l suppletio n suc h a s go/wen-t, fro m differen t ste m readjust - ment s suc h a s goose /geese, life/live-s , an d fro m case s o f irregula r suffixatio n suc h a s ox/ox-en an d child/childr-en, an d i s therefor e force d t o subsum e al l o f thes e clearl y differen t case s unde r th e rubri c o f suppletion . W e hav e shown , then , tha t on e o f Anderson' s principle s o f disjunctio n fo r morphology , hi s principl e (20) , incorrectl y rule s ou t th e choic e o f a suppletiv e ste m o r a ste m readjustmen t i n th e contex t o f a featur e tha t als o trigger s affixation . I n ou r terms , th e feature s o f a termina l nod e (e.g. , [ + past ] o n a Tn s node ) ma y for m th e contex t fo r choic e o f a ste m allo - morp h o r trigge r a readjustmen t rul e i n additio n t o servin g a s a crucia l featur e fo r th e insertio n o f a Vocabular y ite m a t th e node . Anderso n pro - pose s a principl e simila r t o (20) - hi s "elsewhere " principl e (18 ) (p . 132)
- tha t prohibit s a WF R i n on e rul e bloc k fro m applyin g i f it s triggerin g feature s ar e a prope r subse t o f thos e fo r a WF R tha t ha s applie d i n a n earlie r block . Sinc e Anderso n treat s ste m allomorph y an d affi x allomorph y a s completel y distinc t phenomen a (incorrectl y i n ou r view) , h e canno t combin e hi s tw o disjunctio n principles . I n sectio n 5 w e wil l sho w tha t thi s additiona l disjunctiv e principl e (18) , lik e principl e (20) , canno t b e main - tained , an d fo r th e sam e reasons . Readjustmen t rule s appl y t o affixe s a s wel l a s t o stems . A readjustmen t rul e fo r on e affi x triggere d b y a featur e o f a termina l nod e t o it s righ t simpl y doe s no t bloc k th e insertio n o f phonologica l material - tha t is , Vocabular y insertion - a t th e locatio n of th e triggerin g feature . A s w e wil l show , Anderson' s ow n analysi s o f Pota - watomi , a s wel l a s ou r analysis , clearl y illustrate s thi s lac k o f disjunctivity . 4 Nul l Morpheme s A s show n i n (8) , amon g th e Englis h Vocabular y item s tha t compet e fo r assignin g phonologica l feature s t o th e Tns-Ag r nod e ther e ar e tw o tha t assig n phonologica l zer o t o th e node . Anderso n (1992 ) ha s questione d th e realit y o f zer o morph s o f thi s kind . Thus , h e remark s tha t "thes e obvi - ousl y hav e n o conten t a t all . . . th e assumptio n tha t an y