Multiple correspondence

Abstract

Recent work has proposed a reinterpretation of allomorphy in terms of relations between surface forms rather than in terms of a common underlying representation. Burzio (1994a) argues that accentual similarities within pairs like phenomenon/phenomenology, american/ americanize are due to a ‘metrical consistency’ constraint applying across surface forms. McCarthy (1995), Benua (1995, 1997) formulate a similar hypothesis by extending the notion of ‘correspondence’ of McCarthy and Prince (1995) beyond the domain of reduplication, for which it was originally developed. This reinterpretation is one further step in the direction of parallelism. Once this step is taken, there is no longer any reason why word formation should utilize a unique ‘base’, as there is in a derivational framework. Since constraints can apply multiply at the same time, multiple bases with which a derived word would be simultaneously in correspondence, will be expected. This article argues that Italian agentive nouns in -ore are indeed based simultaneously on both the infinitive and the past participle, and that affixal allomorphs are in general also in multiple correspondence with one another, both facts evading any derivational account.

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 — 52 citations exist upstream.

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