TY - JOUR
T1 - On the visibility of word-internal morphological features
AU - Bat-El, Outi
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - In this paper I argue that word-internal morphological features can be visible. I present a case from Hebrew, where plural formation of feminine diminutive nouns is blocked due to features associated with an internal suffix. The feminine diminutive form yaldónet 'little girl' consists of a base yeled 'boy', a diminutive suffix -on, and a feminine suffix -et; -on is specified for [-Fem] and -et for [+Fem]. The plural suffixes in Hebrew are subcategorized for gender, -ot for [+Fem] and -im for [-Fem]. I argue that diminutive forms such as yaldónet cannot be pluralized because -im conflicts with the gender of -et, and -ot with the gender of -on. While the conflict with -et is expectable, the one with -on can be explained only if the gender of the internal suffix is visible. There are, however, cases where word-internal suffixes are not visible. These suffixes, unlike the visible suffix -on, are noncompositional. I thus propose to view words as consisting of compositional and noncompositional morphological domains; only suffixes in a compositional domain can be visible word-internally.
AB - In this paper I argue that word-internal morphological features can be visible. I present a case from Hebrew, where plural formation of feminine diminutive nouns is blocked due to features associated with an internal suffix. The feminine diminutive form yaldónet 'little girl' consists of a base yeled 'boy', a diminutive suffix -on, and a feminine suffix -et; -on is specified for [-Fem] and -et for [+Fem]. The plural suffixes in Hebrew are subcategorized for gender, -ot for [+Fem] and -im for [-Fem]. I argue that diminutive forms such as yaldónet cannot be pluralized because -im conflicts with the gender of -et, and -ot with the gender of -on. While the conflict with -et is expectable, the one with -on can be explained only if the gender of the internal suffix is visible. There are, however, cases where word-internal suffixes are not visible. These suffixes, unlike the visible suffix -on, are noncompositional. I thus propose to view words as consisting of compositional and noncompositional morphological domains; only suffixes in a compositional domain can be visible word-internally.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944474076&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.289
DO - 10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.289
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:24944474076
SN - 0024-3949
VL - 35
SP - 289
EP - 316
JO - Linguistics
JF - Linguistics
IS - 348
ER -