A mismatch between morphological and prosodic domains: evidence from two Igbo rules

Abstract

In order to adequately describe the application of phonological rules across word boundaries, phonologists have appealed to the notion of prosodic domains (Selkirk 1980, 1986; Nespor & Vogel 1982, 1986; Kaisse 1985; Inkelas & Zee 1990). This research has suggested that the domains within and across which rules apply cannot be defined in purely syntactic terms, but rather that a domain structure consisting of prosodic entities such as the phonological word, phonological phrase and intonational phrase must be built up from the syntactic structure. It is to these prosodic categories that phonological rules refer. Prosodic domains are derived from but not necessarily coextensive with syntactic or morphological domains. In fact, some of the best evidence for the necessity of a prosodic structure in addition to a syntactic structure comes from cases where the two donotmatch, and where the correct phonological generalisations can only be captured in terms of the prosodic structure. Igbo presents just such a mismatch. This paper will examine two rules - ATR vowel harmony and vowel assimilation - that make the mismatch clear. These two rules apply in complementary situations: harmony applies only within the word, assimilation only between words. Both rules delineate the same domain, although one operates within the domain boundaries, one across them.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 102 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.