In Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology, David Embick offers the first detailed examination of morphology and phonology from a phase-cyclic point of view (that is, one that takes into account recent developments in Distributed Morphology and the Minimalist program) and the only recent detailed treatment of allomorphy, a phenomenon that is central to understanding how the grammar of human language works. In addition to making new theoretical proposals about morphology and phonology in terms of a cyclic theory, Embick addresses a schism in the field between phonological theories such as Optimality Theory and other (mostly syntactic) theories such as those associated with the Minimalist program. He presents sustained empirical arguments that the Localist view of grammar associated with the Minimalist program (and Distributed Morphology in particular) is correct, and that the Globalism espoused by many forms of Optimality Theory is incorrect. In the "derivational versus nonderivational" debate in linguistic theory, Embick's arguments come down squarely on the derivational side. Determining how to make empirical comparisons between such large positions, and the different frameworks that embody them, is at the heart of the book. Embick argues that patterns of allomorphy implicate general questions about locality and specific questions about the manner in which (morpho)syntax relates to (morpho)phonology. Allomorphy thus provides a crucial test case for comparing Localist and Globalist approaches to grammar.

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000791/current.pdf

Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology

On the Notions Lexically Related and Head of a Word

Memory is fleeting. New material rapidly obliterates previous material. How, then, can the brain deal successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input? We argue that, to deal with this "Now-or-Never" bottleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible. This observation has strong implications for the nature of language processing: (1) the language system must "eagerly" recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each new representational level, the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system must deploy all available information predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with "Right-First-Time"; once the original input is lost, there is no way for the language system to recover. This is "Chunk-and-Pass" processing. Similarly, language learning must also occur in the here and now, which implies that language acquisition is learning to process, rather than inducing, a grammar. Moreover, this perspective provides a cognitive foundation for grammaticalization and other aspects of language change. Chunk-and-Pass processing also helps explain a variety of core properties of language, including its multilevel representational structure and duality of patterning. This approach promises to create a direct relationship between psycholinguistics and linguistic theory. More generally, we outline a framework within which to integrate often disconnected inquiries into language processing, language acquisition, and language change and evolution.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X1500031X

The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.

Greek voice and aspect jointly condition verbal stem allomorphy, including suppletion. Negation and tense in English do likewise. These cases show that stem allomorphy cannot be restricted to cases where the conditioning element is structurally adjacent to the element that displays allomorphic variation. But neither is contextual allomorphy entirely free from locality constraints: allomorphy can be conditioned only by a span, a contiguous set of heads in an extended projection.

/pdf/how-much-context-is-enough-two-cases-of-span-conditioned-3tp48j6hz0.pdf

How Much Context Is Enough? Two Cases of Span-Conditioned Stem Allomorphy

Thesis (PhD)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept of Linguistics and Philosophy, 1980

Dorothy Siegel

Papers

The Adjacency Constraint and the Theory of Morphology