Lexical phonology: An Account of Simple Past and Past Perfect Tenses in Tiv and Igbo By Waya D.T and Eze, Chinwe (Mrs) Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, UNN Wayatarhom.unn.edu.ng/ [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the theory of lexical phonology as it deals with the relationship among phonology, morphology and lexicon. The study considers the nature of lexical phonology as developed by Paul kiparsky and Mohanan, k.P in early 1980s as background. It basic claim is that, morphological processes and many phonological rules are carried out at the lexicon. We therefore implore a descriptive approach in evaluating the wider context use of lexical phonology. Since lexical phonology is a theory about the organization of grammar, we delves on the lexical and post-lexical rules, the former interact with morphological processes while the later is that which apply in constituent larger than word. The study explains three levels of lexical phonology: levels1, 2 and the post- lexical level to account for the simple past and past perfect tenses in Tiv and Igbo respectively. In light of the foregoing, we noticed that the morphological and phonological rules are paired at various levels, in which the lexical rules are cyclic in nature while the post lexical level is discovers not being cyclical. The Tiv simple past tense uses prefix while the Igbo shows suffix. The past perfect tense in Tiv and Igbo indicates the use of prefix and relatively two suffixes in its formation. In summary, the theory of lexical phonology is considered important in the formation of different words and larger structures in languages. 1.1 Background to the Study The theory of lexical phonology, which forms theme of this study was developed by Paul Kiparsky and K.P Mohanan and first introduced in monographs appearing in the early 1980s (Kiparsky: 1982, Mohanan 1982). The good number of phonologists that have begun to work within or in response to the theory in the short time since its appearance is worthy of remark. One reason that lexical phonology has sparked so much interest much surely is that it now supplies tools for analysis and new ways of approaching recalcitrant problems. But another part of its lies in the way it comes as a natural outgrowth of and response to so many of the major trends in phonology and morphology in the last 15 years.
Lexical phonology is a theory about the organization of grammar. In particular, it deals with the relationship among phonology, morphology and lexicon, its basic claim is that all morphological processes and many phonological ones are carried out in the lexicon. Kiparsy (1982:134) opine rules fall into two classes: (1)Lexical Rules. This may interact with morphological rules. (2)Post lexical Rules, which may not interact with morphological lexicon and all post lexical rules in a separate phonological component that is ordered after the rules of syntax. By definition, any phonological rule that applies in constituents larger than words must be post lexical, since such constitute are created by the syntax. The purpose is to demonstrate some ideas that come together in lexical phonology and provide an overview of the model itself. In this, we shall be considering the already well trodden ground, for kipasky, Mohanan and others in their contributions to lexical phonology, However we trust that, this study will find it useful to have in hand an exposition of the different facets of the model and recent challenges and modification it has undergone. We shall point challenges or difficulties inherent in some or all version of the model in the course of the study. 2.1 Conceptual Studies Crystal (1991:199) defines lexical phonology as a theory of phonology in which morphology and phonological rules are brought together with a single framework. Bright (1992:327) on the other hand sees it as a theory about the organization of grammar which deals with relationship among phonology, morphology and lexicon. Going by the above definitions, we can infer that lexical phonology, morphophonemic rules and pure phonological rules come into play in order to form words (lexicon) in a language. The lexicon plays central as well as productive roles in the theory. It consists of levels which are the domain for certain phonological or morphological processes. These phonological rules are categorized into two: the lexical rules (i.e rules that may interact with morphological rules) and post-lexical rules (i.e rules which may not interact with morphological rules) Bright (1992:327) while explaining how to place both the lexical and post-lexical phonological rules in the lexicon, and all post lexical rules in on this view by demonstrating that phonological
a separate phonological component that is ordered after the rules of syntax, from the Brights view, it then implies that lexical rules apply to words which the post lexical rules apply to grammatical units larger than words. Then, during the word formation process, the rules that underlie the formation of words in morphology are directly paired with phonological rules which are grouped together at various levels. In this view, Katamba (1989:257) point out that, the output of each morphological rule is cycled through the phonology so that the relevant phonological rules of that level are applied to it. These levels are shown in the figure 1.1 below Underlying representation Level 1 morphology Level 2 morphology Level n morphology phonology phonology phonology rules which morphological information apply here are called lexical rules L E X I C O N Syntax post lexical phonology rules which requires access to syntactic information or no grammatical information at all, apply here they are called a post lexical rules. Adapted from Kisparsky as lifted in Katamba (1984:257). Looking at the table above, we can see that both the morphological and phonological rules applying to lexicon are cyclical in nature. One of the main claims of lexical phonology is that both inflectional and derivational word formation processes can display on a series of linked levels also called STRATA rules. The rules apply in the form of cycle in these orders (a) application to the root / based words. (b) outward application to the affixes nearest to the root and then (c) outward to the layer of affixes. Katamba (1989:258) demonstrated this theory of word formation to an onion with the root of the word as the core and level 1 as the inner layer, levels 2 as the outer layer and
post lexical phonology as the skin on the outside. The implication of the above illustration is that there is level ordering in lexical phonology, however, Booij (1987) as cited in Katamba (1989:329) contend that level ordering seems out to be relevant since: (a) is at most a parameter (b) It has been argued that restriction on affix order also follow from independently motivated principles, such as the restoration that non-native affixes attach only to non-native stems. Also important to note is that the application for lexical rules is controlled by what Bright (1992:330) calls strict cycle condition (SCC). The need for SCC is for the entire feature changing cycle phonological rules to apply only in derived environments which may be derived morphologically or phonologically. However, Katamba (1989:258) opines that word formation rule in lexical phonology is like this: Morphology Insert A / [Y-Z] x word. For example Insert [past] / [fid - ]v feed + past 2.3. Levels of Lexical Phonology Katamba (1989:258) states that in lexical phonology it is assumed that the lexicon has internal structure. It is not merely a list. Furthermore, it is assumed that the structure of the lexicon is HIERARCHICAL. Halle and Mohanan (1985) argue for a four level morphology. However the consensus stands on the ground that, the theory should be as simple as possible. Katamba (1989) further observe that nothing would be gained by putting each pair of phonological and morphological rules found in a language on a level of their own. But determining the minimal number of strata that is sufficient to account for all the wrinkles in the data is not easy. At the centre of a word, there may be an UNDERIVED LEXICAL item as shown in [fig1.1].Underived lexical items consist of a single morpheme. i.e stand, girl, boy,. No /fid + past /v fed [fed] phonology applying relevant phonological rule. This means that morpheme
A can be inserted in the environment after or before a root word in order to derive a
word formation of any kind is used to produce such words. They appear in the lexicon with phonological, grammatical and semantic properties with which they surface. 2.3.1 Level 1 of Lexical Phonology Level I contain bound morpheme. Katamba (1989:259) illustrated it as in ab and duct in abduct which cannot occur independently but can always be attached to some other form. i.e (a) pertain, contain, detain (b) perceive, conceive, deceive per-, con- and de- are prepositions, and the bases tain and ceive. None of these forms can occur in isolation. However in Latin, per was a preposition meaning by by mean of but, it is doubtful if it is relevance in contemporary English speakers. Level I rule would be used to state the vowel changes as in [1.2] Present [i] Sing [ai] fight [ai] drive past  sang [ ] fought [au] drove perfective [ ] [has] sung  (has) fought [i] (has) driven
The strong verbs undergo changes in the root itself. It shows the form in [1.2] different sub regularities. The regular affixation processes which apply to a verb like walk walked - (has) walked. Having received their past and perfective affixes at level 1, the verb in [1.2] cannot undergo the more regular in verbal affixation processes which apply at level 2. According to Katamba (1989:261).The theory stipulates that all level I rules must precede all level 2 rules which, in turn, precede all post