Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/content/article/files/1563_alderete_1.pdf

Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/content/article/files/1559_rosen_1.pdf

Templatic morphology as an emergent property: Roots and functional heads in Hebrew
Itamar Kastner
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003103
August 2016
Modern Hebrew exhibits a non-concatenative morphology of consonantal “roots” and melodic “templates” that is typical of Semitic languages. Even though this kind of non-concatenative morphology is well known, it is only partly understood. In particular, theories differ in what counts as a morpheme: the root, the template, both, or neither. Accordingly, theories differ as to what representations learners must posit and what processes generate the eventual surface forms. In this paper I present a theory of morphology and allomorphy that combines lexical roots with syntactic functional heads, improving on previous analysis of root-and-pattern morphology. Verbal templates are here argued to emerge from the combination of syntactic elements, constrained by the general phonology of the language, rather than from some inherent difference between Semitic morphology and that of other languages. This way of generating morphological structure fleshes out a theory of morphophonological alternations that are non-adjacent on the surface but are local underlyingly; with these tools it is possible to identify where lexical exceptionality shows its effects and how it is reigned in by the grammar. The Semitic root is thus analogous to lexical roots in other languages, storing idiosyncratic phonological and semantic information but obeying the syntactic structure in which it is embedded.

Substance Free Phonology
Charles Reiss
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003087
August 2016
Imagine a theory of phonology that makes no reference to well-formedness, repair, contrast, typology, variation, language change, markedness, `child phonology’, faithfulness, constraints, phonotactics, articulatory or acoustic phonetics, or speech perception. What remains in such a phonological theory constitutes the components of the Substance Free Phonology (SFP) model I will sketch here. My task thus involves not only justifying the exclusion of all those domains, but also arguing that something remains that is worthy of the name `phonology’. In support of the latter task, I’ll provide some positive examples of recent research in SFP.

Intonation, yes and no
Daniel Goodhue, Michael Wagner
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003082
July 2016

English polar particles yes and no seem to be interchangeable in response to negative sentences, that is, either can be used to convey both positive and negative responses. While some recent research has been devoted to explaining this phenomenon (Kramer & Rawlins, 2009; Cooper & Ginzburg, 2011; Krifka, 2013b; Roelofsen & Farkas, 2015; Holmberg, 2016), questions remain. Primary among them is whether intonation differs depending on whether the response is positive or negative, and whether intonation can affect the interpretation of polar particle responses. In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that the contradiction contour (Liberman & Sag, 1974) is an intonation that is only produced on positive responses to negative polar questions, and that it influences how hearers interpret bare particle responses. Our experimental results also confirm the phenomenon of interchangeability, and add new evidence regarding speakers’ preferences for using yes and no in response to negative polar questions. We discuss theories of polar particles and intonation, and how the experimental results bear on them, and conclude by considering uses of polar particles that are not easily explained by existing theories.