Degrees of allomorphy

Allomorphy can be subdivided into several types. It would be quite possible to formulate the allomorphic rules so that variations explainable in consistent morphological, phonological or morpho-phonological terms (for instance race: racy, anger: angry or the shift of stress before (IC) in humanist: humanistic)wereplaced in a category of their own and covered by their own rules. Rule R 2 should then be rephrased to limit its coverage to variations (such as symptom: simptomatic, produce: product) which are not explainable in such terms.

However, there are reasons for thinking this is unnecessary. One is that R 2 provides umbrella coverage for graphological and other such variation already, so to exempt these forms would be superfluous. Secondly, none of the variations quoted is 100% consistent. Beside race: racy we find lace: lacey; beside anger: angry wefind bluster: blustery; beside humanist: humanistic we find Arab: Arabic.

It may also be objected that to allow symptom: symptomat- as allomorphs dangerously facilitates the process of segmentation. The suggestion is that while symptomatic can now be segmented by S 1 – on the grounds that it consists of (SYMPTOM) + (IC) – it might well be difficult to segment by S 2. (This argument is not in fact applicable to symptom: symptomatic since we can easily segment also by S 2 on the pattern:

symptomat-: anatom- + -ize: -ic.

And the same is true of the great majority of these forms. S 2 is applicable in almost every case. But there are nevertheless cases where this objection holds good.)

We see no reason to doubt the rightness of this R 2 at least so far as it serves our present purpose of suffix-segmentation. This means that we shall indeed be willing to recognize symptomat- (in symptomatic) as an allomorphic instance of (SYMPTOM), paralleled by, for example:

(PARADIGM) recognized in paradigmat- + (IC)

(PROBLEM) recognized in problemat- + (IC)

(ERR) recognized in errat- + (IC)

(IDIOM) recognized in idiomat- + (IC)

(SYSTEM) recognized in systemat-+ (IC).

It is not true that rule R 2 in any way “corrupts” our segmentation procedures or the statistics which arise from them. We should, that is, have been forced to find some other way to make the symptomat- + (IC) segmentation in any case. When we examine the considerable pattern strength represented in Webster and Brown it becomes clear that this -at- is a feature of our language that has to be dealt with under any circumstances. It is no rare occurrence but a recurring unit, albeit of uncertain function. We shall (if we reject the stem-allomorphy proposal offered above) have to classify -atic either as an allomorphic variant of (IC), or as a new morpheme (ATIC), (an uneconomical suggestion), or in some other way.

COMPREHENSION CHECK

1. Describe the procedures used to identify affixal morphemes.

2. Compare the rules of segmentation and state the points that make them different.

3. Find your own examples in which segmentation is questionable and give arguments of your solutions.

Dieter Kastovsky*

Date: 2016-04-22; view: 849