Workshop on Strength in Grammar Leipzig University

10-11.11.2017

Root strength as (under)specification: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek

Vassilios Spyropoulosa

Anthi Revithiadoub Giorgos Markopoulosb

aNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens,

bAristotle University of Thessaloniki

contact: revith@lit.auth.gr

2

Aims • To highlight the systematic patterns that are attested in a

complex morphological system that employs root/stemalternations to encode not only grammatical features such asVoiceandAspect,butalsocategorizingheadssuchasn.

• To offer an analysis that treats Readjustment Rules (RRs) asepiphenomenaderivingfromthephonologicalpropertiesoftheVocabularyItems(rootsandexponentsoffunctionalheads)andtheapplicationofsystematicmorphophonologicaloperations.

• Toexplorethenotionofgrammaticalstrengthbyunderscoringthe importance of phonological factors in determining thestrengthvalueofaphonologicalentity.

3

1. Focus of the talk • Rootalternationscross-linguistically:(1) a. English NONPAST PAST PASTPART NOUN

sing sang sung song b. German NONPAST PAST PASTPART NOUN sing-e sang ge-sung-en Ge-sang

4

• Twotypesofanalysesforthesealternations:

ü A. Stem-listing/spanning analyses (e.g., Booij 1997; Mascaró2005; Bermúdez-Otero 2013; see also Siddiqi 2009; Merchant 2015;Haugen & Siddiqi 2016): Root/stem allomorphs are stored asseparateentries.E.g.,

(2) a. STEM1:sing[verb,–past],STEM2:sang[verb,+past],etc. b. sing:< SING,v,T[–past]>,sang:< SING,v,T[+past]>,etc.

Each entry is grammatically conditioned by the featurespecificationofthefunctionalenvironmentorfromthespanitmanifests.

5

ü B.Readjustment analyses (e.g.,Halle&Marantz1993;Embick&Halle2005;Harley&Tubino-Blanco2013;Arregi&Nevins2014;Embick2016): One underlying form that undergoes alternations bymeans of a RR,which ‘readjusts’ the phonological shape oftherootbychangingitscorevowel.E.g.,

(3) SING ↔sang/__ ͡T[+past]

↔…↔singelsewhere

6

▷Proposal:FocusingonGreekverbs,wewillarguethat:� Root/stem alternations are best explained as the result of

Readjustments appliedona single root/constituent rather thanasinstantiationsofdifferentstems(i.e.rootallomorphs).⇒ Roots are bare indiceswhich acquire not onlymeaning via

grammaticalstructure(seeArad2005;Acquaviva2009;Panagiotidis2014amongmanyothers)butalsophonologicalinformation.

⇒ TheVIofarootmaybephonologicallyunderspecified.⇒ Besides segmental strings (i.e. morphs), abstract

phonological elements such as (floating) features, accentsetc.arealsoavailableforsyntacticmanipulation(cf.Bermúdez-Otero 2012 for a totally different take on the nature of phonologicalentitiesaccessibletomorphology).

7

▷ Whatisnew:� Readjustments derive from empty elements, and other

‘defective’ entities, etc. that exercise an effect on neighboringphonologicalconstituents.

� A distinction is drawn between ‘strong’/regular and‘weak’/irregular roots which is argued to stem from thephonologicalshapeoftheexponentsthatmaterializearootandnotfromthemorphosyntacticstatusoftherootperse.

8

▷Wordofcaution:⇒ Our main goal is to unearth and describe hidden, unexplored

and not well-discussed regularities in root/stem alternationsandnot toexaminetheGreekverbalsystemin itsentiretyandwith all its complexity (see, for instance, some spurious patterns ofinflection class shifting, e.g., filáo,filáso,filáɣo ‘guard’, theoriginsofwhichshouldbe sought in the long andoften tumultuoushistoryof the language,e.g.thearchaic/purifiedvs.demoticlanguageconflict).Herewefocusonaspecificsetof (sub)regularities that involve therealizationofaspectandvoice.

⇒ We will also not address the issue of stress, although it issignificant,sinceroot/stemalternationsarealsoattestedinthisrespect too (see Revithiadou & Spyropoulos 2016 for the role of stress indeterminingthephonologicalpropertiesofaroot).

9

2. A brief overview of Greek verbal morphology The morphosyntactic structure of the verbal head after verbmovement (Philippaki-Warburton 1998; Philippaki-Warburton &Spyropoulos1999amongothers):(4)

10

2.1. Regular/strong verbs � Vowel-ending roots; there are no (morpho)phonological rules

affectingthesegmentsofthemorphologicalconstituents:

(5)

11

(6)

12

(7)

13

� Consonant-ending roots; several morphophonological rulesoperate at the borders of themorphological constituents (e.g.,voiceassimilation(VA),mannerdissimilation(MD)).

(8) aníɣo(ανοίγω)‘Iopen’(Root: ANIƔ)

a. activeimperfectiveform aníɣo aniɣ√]-∅v]-∅Voice/Asp]-∅T]-oAgr] →aníɣo b. activeperfectiveform aníkso aniɣ√]-∅v]-sVoice/Asp]-∅T]-oAgr] →aníkso

(ɣ→kbyVA&MD) c. passiveperfectiveform aníxtika aniɣ√]-∅v]-θVoice/Asp]-ikT]-aAgr]→aníxtika

(ɣ→xbyVA,θ→tbyMD)

14

2.2. ớrregular/weak verbs • Voice, aspect and tense may also be realized by affecting the

phonologicalshapeoftheroot/stem.− Roots/stems undergo phonological reshaping, expressed incertain roots as vowel alternation (with or without asegmental affix) and in others as consonant change.Interestingly, reshaping follows systematic patterns. Forinstance, /e/ is found in [–pfv] environments, and /i/ in[+pfv]ones.

− Thechangesmayaffectnotonlytherootbutalsoverbalizers.− Similar root/stemalternationsarealsoobserved innominalformationsfromtheseroots/stems.

15

16

17

▷ Desiderata:• A descriptively adequate account for the systematicity of such

alternationsinaconstrainedway.⇒ Stemlistingmissesagreatdealofthissystematicityanditis

highlyredundant(seediscussionin§6).⇒ RRsaremorepromisinginthisrespect.

• A constrained theory of RRs, which predicts the existing

regularities/patternsbymeansofwellestablishedphonologicaloperations.⇒ RRs as exponents and epiphenomena of phonological

deficiency/underspecification

18

3. Irregular/weak verbs with V alternations Proposal: Certain roots (e.g.aniɣ-,ɣraf-) appear tobe ‘strong’ inthesensethattheyareinvariantinallcontexts(álaInkelas2015).RootssuchastheonesinTable1iare‘weak’inthesensethattheyexhibitValternations.

19

• We do not concur with proposals that attribute thesusceptibility to change ofweak roots to the reduced strengthfeature values on their vocalic segment (as a reflection of thefrequencyand/ortheregularitywithwhichagivenphonologicalentity is produced/perceived, see Inkelas’s 2015 confidencescale).

• We propose instead that the strong/weak split reflects

differencesinthephonologicalspecificationoftheexponentsofaroot:

20

(9)Threetypesofrootspecification

fully-specified defective withanemptyV withafloatingV a. √ɣraf b. √stVl c. √sVr √ɣðVr i a ‘write’ ‘send’ ‘drag’‘skin’

21

F Thephonologicalprofileoftherootiscrucialfortherealization oftheVoice/Aspandnheads:− fully-specified roots are selected by fully-specified affixalexponents(e.g.,-s)

− defective roots are selected by phonologically defectiveexponents

⇒ Thedistributionofallomorphsdependsonthefullvs.defectiverootspecification

22

3.1. Alternations in defective roots with an empty V(12b)

(10)

a. stéln-o ‘Isend’b. é-stil-a ‘Isent’c. stál-θ-ik-a ‘Iwassent’d. apo-stol-í ‘dispatch’

23

Theelementse…n,i,a…θ,othatareexponentsofVoice/Aspectandnallinvolvedefectivevowels.TherootvowelchangesdependingonwhichaffixalvowelislicensedintheavailableV-slot.E.g.:

24

(11) a. CCC–C → |||| stln V e

CCVCC steln||⋮||steln

b. CCC– → ||| stl V i

CCVC stil||⋮|stil

25

Comments:� Fortheeaseofexposition,intheautosegmentalrepresentations

in(11)wehaveomittedsomedetailsofouranalysis.� Csare fullyspecifiedsegments in thesense thatareassociated

withfullyspecifiedFEATUREROOTNODES(•F-Rt).� TheemptyV-slotdominatesonlya[–cons]feature.� The floating /e/ is a defective •F-Rt node specified only for

PL[COR]andAperture[–hi,–lo].

26

3.2. Alternations in defective roots with a floating V(12c)

(12)

a. sér-n-o ‘Idrag’b. é-sir-a ‘Idragged’c. sír-θ-ik-a ‘Iwasdragged’d. sír-t-is ‘latch’

(13)

a. ɣðér-n-o ‘Iskin’b. é-ɣðar-a ‘Iskinned’c. ɣðár-θ-ik-a ‘Iwasskinned’d. ɣðár-simo ‘skinning’e. ekðor-á ‘abrasion’

27

Interestingly,thesamepatternisfollowedbyverbsshapedwithhighlyproductiveverbalizers:

28

Roots (/verbalizers) carrying a floating vowel themselves showonly partial vowel alternation. For these verbs [+pfv] is notdischargedbyaspecificVI,thusAspectisrealizedbytheelsewhereexponent∅(seelistofexponentsin15–18).⇒ In [+pfv] environments, where no affixal defective vowel is

available,theunlinkedrootvowelisrealizedontheV-slotofitssponsor(14a).

⇒ In all other environments (e.g., [–pfv], n) the affixal defectivevowelisrealizedinstead(14b).

29

(14) a. CC–C → ||| srn V ie

CVCC sern|⋮||siern

b. CC–∅ → || sr V i

CVC∅ sir|⋮| sir

30

3.3. Interim recapitulation Onthelistofexponents:• Thedistributionoftheexponentsislocallydetermined(interms

of linear adjacency). More specifically, the selection of theparticular exponent hinges on the exact make up of thebase/rootatthepointwhereVItakesplace.

(15) C C V C [–pfv] ↔ • | / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | | e n •F-Rt (•F-Rt) •F-Rt

31

(16) C V C [+pfv] ↔ • / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | | i •F-Rt •F-Rt C C V C ↔ | / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | | | s •F-Rt •F-Rt •F-Rt(17) C C V C [+pass, ↔ • | / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | | +pfv] a θ •F-Rt •F-Rt C C V C ↔ | / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | (|) | θ •F-Rt •F-Rt •F-Rt(18) [αpfv] ↔ ∅ elsewhere (19) C V C n ↔ • / CVC͡__,whereCVC= | | o •F-Rt (•F-Rt) •F-Rt

32

Onrootalternations:• Rootalternationsaredueto(a)rootunderspecificationand(b)

the exponence of the Voice-Asp and n nodes in the form ofdefective•F-Rts.

Onreadjustments:• Readjustmentsareviewedaseffectsexercisedbyexponentson

the phonological shape of adjacent elements (i.e. roots andverbalizers) as a result of their phonological defectiveness.Readjustment Rules – RRs will henceforth be used as a covertermtorefertotheseeffects.

33

OnthedynamicsofRRs:• AdaptationofloanwordstoGreekverbalmorphology Initialstages [±pfv]parkáro ‘Ipark’ Advancedstages [−pfv]parkérnovs.[+pfv]parkároOntheroot-affixdynamics:• Underspecified roots integrate (segmental and/or defective)

affixalmaterial at theexpenseof theirownunassociated •F-Rtnodes.

34

4. The realization of defective elements We adopt Zimmerman’s (2017, esp. ch 2) Prosodically DefectiveMorphemes (PMD) framework and especially the followingassumptions:1. Nothing is deleted from the input (Containment, Prince &

Smolensky 1993/2002 and esp. Colored containment, vanOostendorp 2006, 2007, 2008; Revithiadou 2007; Trommer2011a et seq.; Trommer & Zimmerman 2014). Phonology canseecolors.

(Note:Allepentheticmaterialiscolorless)

35

2. Thereexistdifferenttypesofassociationlines:o Underlying/morphological association lines (visible orinvisible)

o Epenthetic/phoneticassociationlines(visibleorinvisible)(20) morphological epentheticvisible a. x

A

b. y B

The focus will mainly be on epenthetic association lines (20b). Otherinstantiationsofinvisibility(e.g.,silencedmorphologicaland/orphoneticassociations)falloutsidethescopeofthepresentdiscussion.

36

3. Exponentsmaybeprosodicallydefectiveintheinputo PhonologicalentitiesthatarenotdominatedbyahighernodeontheProsodicHierarchy,and/or

o Phonological entities that do not dominate a lower node ontheProsodicHierarchy

E.g.,(21) a. x

| AAisdominatedbyhigherx;xdominatesA

b. x1 x2 AA isnotdominatedbyhigher x;x1,x2donotdominateanythingàdefective

37

We diverge from the PMD framework by extending dominationrelations to V and •F-Rt nodes (see, e.g., de Lacy 2012 for therepresentation of defective segments in Dholuo; also Bye &Svenonius2012andespeciallyTrommer2011abetseq.;Trommer&Zimmerman2014).Twotypesofdefectivestructuresunderlyingly:(22) a. V

•F-Rt

b. V

38

Following Trommer (2011a), we assume that segmental anddefective elements cannot phonologically form together a singleexponent, hence e…n, a…θ constitute multiple exponents withdifferentlinearizationspecifications:theexponent•F-Rt[COR,–hi,–lo] is specified tobe suffixed to the rightmostVnodeof thebase,whereas the exponent /n/ is specified to be suffixed to therightmostsegmentalnodeofitsbase:(23) [–pfv] ↔ (•,•Vr__)⊕(C,•r__) [COR] | [–hi,–lo]n

39

All exponents of the same VI share the same morphologicalaffiliation/color.(24) Unified Color Exponence Hypothesis (Trommer 2011a: 34):

Exponents of the same vocabulary item have the samemorphologicalaffiliation/color.

40

Weadoptthefollowingconstraints(basedonZimmerman2017:42,48,51,57):(25) a. V>DOp>•F-RT:AVshouldphoneticallydominatea•F-Rt node.

(Penalizesemptysegments)

b. COL!•F-Rt: A •F-Rt should be licensed by morphologicalcolor.

(Penalizesepenthetic•F-Rts)

c. PVIS•F-Rt:A•F-Rtnodeshouldbephoneticallyvisible.(Penalizessilenced•F-Rts)

41

d. INVARIANCE[•F-RTα/Vα]:A•F-Rtnodeofcolorαthatisnot morphologicallyassociatedwithanyVofcolorα should notbephoneticallyassociatedwithiteither.

(Penalizestautomorphemicphoneticassociationoffloatingelements;itforcesthemtoberealizedacrossmorpheme

boundaries)

42

43

44

45

5. Irregular verbs with C alternations For a group of latent [DOR] roots (of Ancient Greek stock) andverbalizers,e.g. -az (-άζω),aC[COR]/z/surfaces inall formsbut theimperfectiveones:

46

Adefectiverootplusa ‘defective’/floatingcoronalobstruentyieldstheabovepatterns:(26) defectiverootanddefective[–pfv]exponent a. VαCαVαCα – [alaz]

|||•α•β aαlαaαɣz

b. CαVαCαVαCα – [xaraz] ||||•α•β xαaαrαaαkαzβ

47

48

6. Theoretical issues 6.1. Readjustment analyses vs. Stem-listing analyses

49

• Explanatorypower:Readjustmentanalysescancapture:⇒ alternationpatternsthathavegoneunnoticedinstem/span-

listingapproaches,e.g.theconsistentemergenceof/e…n/inimperfectiveforms,

⇒ regularities, e.g. the way Voice/Aspect conditionedalternations pattern together with alternations innominalizations.

• Predictability: The RRs presented above are employed by

speakers for the adaptation of loanwords to Greek verbalmorphology (e.g., [±pfv]parkáro ‘Ipark’→ [−pfv]parkérno vs.[+pfv]parkáro).

50

• Economy: Stem/span-listing analyses need to postulate manydifferentlistedallomorphsforeachofthealternationsdiscussedabove,whichwillmultiplyifweconsidertheeffectofstress(e.g.√STVL ‘send’ would have as many as 5 stem/span allomorphs:stel-,stil-,stal-,stál-,stol-).

51

6.2. Grammatical strength • In the analyses that construe grammatical strength as a

structure-dependent property, the focus so far has been ondifferencesacrossmorphologicalcategoriesandparticularlyonthe root-affix asymmetry; see, for instance, the well-knownmetaconstraint ROOTFAITH >> AFFIXFAITH (McCarthy & Prince1995;Urbanczyk2001,a.o.).

Cf.ModernHebrew (Ussishkin&Wedel 2002):Roots require higher levels of phonemiccontrastivenesscomparedtoaffixesandarethuslesssusceptibletophonologicalchanges.

52

However…• AstheGreekdatasuggest,itisnotenoughforanelementtobe

labeled a ‘root’ in order to be attributed a special status;phonologicallyunderspecifiedrootsarealso‘weak’inthesensethat they acquire their full phonological content fromneighboringaffixes.

⇒ Strength asymmetries are attested not onlyacross but also

withinmorphologicalcategories.

53

Cross-linguistic evidence: Strength asymmetries may derive fromdifferencesin:− Segmentalcomposition–existenceofvowels:

ModernHebrew(Arad2005)• Consonantalvs.syllabicroots;onlytheformeraresubjected

topattern/templaticmorphologyinordertotaketheformofacontinuousstring(yieldingmišqalicnouns).

54

− Segmentalcomposition–numberofvowels:ChukchansiYokuts(Guekguezian2017)• Subminimal roots (with one underlying vowel) are

augmented to satisfy minimality by undergoing templaticmorphology;theyforman(LH)ωsequencewhenatriggeringsuffix(=asyntacticallycyclicphasehead)attaches.

• Rootswithmorethanoneunderlyingvoweldonotundergotemplaticchanges;theysurfacewiththeirunderlyingshape.

⇒ Grammaticalstrengthisphonologicallygrounded

55

Acknowledgements WewouldliketothanktheaudiencesofRootsV(June16–18,2017,QMUL&UCL, London) andComparativeLinguisticsMeetings2017(1st Meeting, October 18, 2017, AUTh, Thessaloniki) for theirvaluablecommentsandsuggestions.

56

Thank you for your attention!

57

References Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. In AlexandraGalani,DanielRedinger&NormanYeo(eds.),York-EssexMorphologyMeeting5:1–21.

Arad,Maya.2005.RootsandPatterns:HebrewMorpho-syntax.Dordrecht:Springer.Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2014. A monoradical approach to some cases ofdisuppletion.TheoreticalLinguistics40(3–4):311–330.

Bermúdez-Otero,Ricardo.2012.Thearchitectureofgrammarandthedivisionoflabor.InJochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. 8–83. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bermúdez-Otero,Ricardo.2013.TheSpanishlexiconstoresstemswiththemevowels,notrootswithinflectionalclassfeatures.Probus25(1):3–103.

Booij,Geert.1997.Allomorphyandtheautonomyofmorphology.FoliaLinguisticaXXXI/1–2:25–56.

Bye,Patrik&PeterSvenonius.2012.Non-concatenativemorphologyasepiphenomenon.InJochenTrommer(ed.),TheMorphologyandPhonologyofExponence.426–495.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Embick,David.2016.Onthedistributionofstemalternants:Separationand its limits. InAna R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds.),TheMorphomeDebate:DiagnosingandAnalyzingMorphomicPatterns.276–305.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

58

Embick, David&Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems inmorphological theory. InTwanGeerts,IvovanGinneken&HaikeJacobs(eds.),RomanceLanguagesandLinguisticTheory 2003: Selected Papers from ‘GoingRomance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November[CurrentIssuesinLinguisticTheory270].37–62.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017. Templates as the interaction of recursiveword structureandprosodicwell-formedness.Phonology34:81–120.

Halle,Morris&AlecMarantz.1993.DistributedMorphologyandthePiecesofInflection.InKennethHaleandS.JayKeyser(eds.),TheViewfromBuilding20:EssaysinLinguisticsinHonorofSylvainBromberger.111–176.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Harley,Heidi&MercedesTubino-Blanco.2013.Cycles,VocabularyItemsandstemformsin Hiaki. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today:MorphemesforMorrisHalle.117–134.CambridgeMA:MITPress.

Haugen,JasonD.&DanielSaddiqi.2016.Towardsarestrictedrealizationtheory.InDanielSaddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.),Morphological Metatheory. 343–386. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Inkelas,Sharon.2015.Confidencescales:Anewapproachtoderivedenvironmenteffects.In Yuchau E. Hsiao & Lian-HeeWee (eds.), CapturingPhonological ShadesWithin andAcrossLanguages.45–75.NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.

de Lacy, Paul. 2012. Morphophonological polarity. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), TheMorphologyandPhonologyofExponence.121–159.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

59

Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry38(4):715–735.

McCarthy,JohnJ.&AlanPrince.1995.Faithfulnessandreduplicativeidentity.UniversityofMassachusettsOccasionalPapersinLinguistics18:PapersinOptimalityTheory.[URL:http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/10]

Merchant,Jason.2015.Howmuchcontextisenough?Twocasesofspan-conditionedstemallomorphy.LinguisticInquiry46(2):273–303.

vanOostendorp,Marc.2006.Atheoryofmorphosyntacticcolours.Ms.,MeertensInstitute,Amsterdam.[URL:http://egg.auf.net/06/docs/Hdt%20Oostendorp%20coulours.pdf]

vanOostendorp,Marc.2007.Derivedenvironmenteffectsandconsistencyofexponence.InSylviaBlaho,PatrikBye&MartinKrämer(eds.),Freedomofanalysis?.123–148.Berlin&NewYork:DeGruyterMouton.

vanOostendorp,Marc. 2008. Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology.Lingua 118(9):1362–1374.[URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.009]

Panagiotidis,Phoevos.2014.Aminimalistapproachtoroots.InPeterKosta,StevenFranks,LiliaSchürcks&TeodoraRadeva-Bork (eds.),MinimalismandBeyond:RadicalizingtheInterfaces.287–303.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1998. Functional categories andModernGreek syntax.TheLinguisticReview15:158–186.

60

Philippaki-Warburton, Irene & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 1999. On the boundaries ofinflection and syntax:Greekpronominal clitics andparticles. InGeertBooij& JapvanMarle(eds.),TheYearbookofMorphology1998.45–72.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Prince,Alan&Paul Smolensky.1993/2002.OptimalityTheory:Constraint interaction ingenerative grammar, ROA 537-0802 [originally circulated in 1993, Rutgers TechnicalReportsTR-2,NewBrunswick,NJ,RutgersCenterforCognitiveScience].

Revithiadou, Anthi. 2007. Colored Turbid accents and Containment: A case study fromlexicalstress. InSylviaBlaho,PatrikBye&MartinKrämer(eds.),Freedomofanalysis?.149–174.Berlin&NewYork:DeGruyterMouton.

Revithiadou,Anthi&VassiliosSpyropoulos.2016.Stressattheinterface:Phases,accentsanddominance.LinguisticAnalysis41(1–2):3–74.

Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and ArgumentSelectioninDistributedMorphology.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. Themorphology of PAST in Greek. InMelitaStavrou,DespinaPapadopoulou&MariaTheodoropoulou(eds.),StudiesinGreekLinguistics29. 108–122. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Institute ofModernGreekStudies,ManolisTriandafyllidisFoundation,Thessaloniki.

Spyropoulos,Vassilios,AnthiRevithiadou&PhoevosPanagiotidis.2015.Verbalizersleavemarks: Evidence from Greek.Morphology25(3). 299–325. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-015-9260-5

61

Trommer, Jochen. 2011a. Phonological aspects ofWesternNiloticmutationmorphology.Habil,UniversityofLeipzig.

Trommer,Jochen.2011b.Phonologicalsensitivitytomorphologicalstructure.InMarcvanOostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The BlackwellCompaniontoPhonology.2464–2489.Malden,MA:WileyBlackwell.

Trommer, Jochen & Eva Zimmermann. 2014. Generalisedmora affixation and quantity-manipulatingmorphology.Phonology31:463–510.[URL:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675714000220]

Urbanczyk,Suzanne.2001.PatternsofReduplicationinLushootseed.NewYork:Garland.Ussishkin, Adam & Andrew Wedel. 2002. Neighborhood density and the root-affixdistinction. InMasakoHirotani (ed.),ProceedingsofNELS32: 539–549. Amherst,MA:GLSA.

Vaxman, Alexandre. 2016. How to Beat without Feet: Weight Scales and ParameterDependencies in the Computation of Word Accent. Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

Wheeler,Deirdre.1981.AspectsofaCategorialTheoryofPhonology.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst,MA.

Wheeler, Deirdre. 1988. Consequences of some categorially-motivated phonologicalassumptions. In Richard T. Oehrle, EmmonBach&DeirdreWheeler (eds.),CategorialGrammarandNaturalLanguageStructures.467–488.Dordrecht:Reidel.

62

Zimmerman, Eva. 2017. Morphological Length and Prosodically Defective Morphemes.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

63

Appendix Thefunctionalcategoriesandtheirexponents:• Verbalizer v: Mainly null. It may be also realized with overt

suffixes (e.g., -ev, -iz, etc.) or with an empty vocalic segment,which results in the second conjugational pattern (seeSpyropoulosetal.2015fordetails).

64

(27) Theexponentsofv

a. v ↔ -0V/{ AƔAP, STER, …}___

b. v ↔ -ar/{ FRESK,…}___ -iz /{ KOKIN,…}___

-ev/{ ðISKOL,…}___ …

c. v ↔ -∅ /{ VAF, AKU,…}

65

• Voice[±passive]andAspect[±perfective].Thesetwofunctionalcategories highly interact in their exponence, so that we takethem to be fused (see below for arguments on why fusion isempiricallysuperiorthanspanning).

(28) TheexponentsofVoice/Aspect

a. /-s/ ↔ [+pfv] b. /-θ/ ↔ [+pass(+pfv)](/[+pfv]) c. /-ús/ ↔ [−pfv]/{ AƔAP, STER, …}___[+past] d. ∅ ↔ elsewhere

66

• Tense [±past]: It is mainly encoded in the choice of theagreementsuffix.[+past]isalsoencodedbythesuffix/-ik/andtheaugment(astressedemptyvocalicprefix,whichcreatesanantepenultimate stress pattern and surfaces as /e-/ when theverbformconsistsoflessthanthreesyllables;seeSpyropoulos&Revithiadou2009),whichareincomplementarydistribution,intheenvironmentof[+perfective].

(29) TheexponentsofTense a. /V"-/ ↔ [+past] b. /-ik/ ↔ [+past]/[+pfv]___ c. ∅ ↔ [elsewhere]

67

• Agreement: Sets of 6 suffixes that are conditioned mainly bytense;inpassivevoice,theymayalsoencode/beconditionedbyVoice[+pass]andAspect[−pfv]:

68