THE MORPHO-PHONOLOGY OF (IN)ALIENABLE POSSESSION

THE MORPHO-PHONOLOGY OF (IN)ALIENABLE POSSESSION
复制标题

（不可剥夺）占有的形态音系

DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eva Dobler
Eva Dobler
中科院分区：
--
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eva Dobler

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本文的目的是论证在句法音系学接口方面工作的必要性。虽然音系学可以给我们提供对所有格DPS的形态句法结构有价值的洞察，但也确实，一些语音现象只有在我们考虑形态句法派生的情况下才能得到解释性分析。我将以Nivkh和Acholi这两种语言为例来说明我的观点，这两种语言都在形态上表现出了不可剥夺(AL)和不可剥夺(IA)所有格结构之间的差异。下面(1)中的数据举例说明了我将要谈到的形态-音位对比。在(1a)中，注意到音节结构的音位限制；为了获得完美的CV音节，删除了后缀开头的鼻音。有趣的是，(1b)中的示例不遵循这种模式。在(1b)中的所有格结构中，对输入的忠诚超过了音形偏好。这两个例子之间唯一明显的区别是语义上的不同：(1a)是所谓的不可剥夺所有词，而(1b)是可剥夺的所有词。
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the necessity of work on the syntaxphonology interface. I will show that while phonology can give us valuable insight into the morpho-syntactic structure of possessive DPs, it is also true that some phonological phenomena can only get an explanatory analysis if we take the morpho-syntactic derivation into account. I will demonstrate my point on the example of two languages, Nivkh and Acholi, that both show a morphophonological difference between alienable (AL) and inalienable (IA) possessive constructions. The data in (1) below examplify the morpho-phonological contrast that I will be talking about. In (1a), phonotactic restrictions on syllable structure are observed; to achieve perfect CV-syllables, the nasal at the beginning of the suffix is deleted. Interestingly, the example in (1b) does not follow this pattern. In the possessive construction in (1b), faithfulness to the input outweighs phonotactic preferences. The only obvious difference between the two examples is a semantic difference: (1a) is a so-called inalienable possessive whereas (1b) is an alienable possessive.