Harley Colloq TODAY, Social Follows

Come one, come all! Heidi Harley (Arizona) will be presenting today (3:30pm, Greenberg) on her work with Mercedes Tubino Blanco. The talk is entitled “Hiaki suppletion, stem classes and the organization of the morphological component” (abstract below). There will be a social afterwards, so come and stay to converse over snacks and drinks.

Heidi Harley: Hiaki suppletion, stem classes and the organization of the morphological component.

The analysis of arbitrary morphological classes has a number of architectural implications in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). There is no central repository of Saussurean ‘words’ in the framework—no sound-meaning pairings that are the building blocks for both phonological and semantic sentence-level representations. Instead, there are separate lists. One list contains all syntactic and semantic information necessary for the derivation of a well-formed LF representation, and forms the input to the syntactic derivation. A second list, the Vocabulary, describes the phonological realizations that are inserted as exponents of particular syntactic terminal nodes, following all syntactic operations. This raises the question of where class features are located. What elements do rules which are sensitive to class membership refer to? Are they sensitive to properties of the abstract syntacticosemantic formatives of the first list? Or are they instead sensitive to properties of the phonological exponents, the Vocabulary Items in the second list?

We will argue that class features in Hiaki are not properties of roots in the syntax but rather are properties of Vocabulary Items, the phonological exponents inserted at the end of the syntactic derivation. Irregular morphophonological rules (Readjustment Rules) apply to a particular class of Vocabulary Items in the appropriate morphosyntactic environment. Classifications of this kind play no role in the syntactic/semantic computation, but are crucial in triggering the application of the appropriate morphophonological rule to yield the correct surface form in such cases. The existence of such morphophonological classifications, irrelevant to syntax, is thus an argument against the lexeme, as such, and in favor of the DM style separation of the two lists: List 1, input to the syntax (the source of the Numeration in Minimalist syntactic theories), and List 2, Vocabulary Items which simply realize the output of the syntax. Further, the Hiaki case provides a clear argument for Vocabulary Insertion applying to Root elements (l-morphemes, in Harley & Noyer 2000′s terminology), as well as to f-morphemes. In addition, the notion of a phasal cycle within the word proves useful in permitting a simple statement of the relevant conditioning context for the application of morphophonological rules.