Call for papers/abstracts : Workshop Proposal at the 22nd International Morphology Meeting (IMM22) Title: Phonomorphology at the Interface: Autonomy, Modularity, and Opaqueness in Word Formation

Convenor: Michela Russo (CNRS SFL UMR 7023/U. Paris 8 & UJML 3, France)

Workshop Proposal at the 22nd International Morphology Meeting (IMM22)

Title: Phonomorphology at the Interface: Autonomy, Modularity, and Opaqueness in Word Formation

Workshop organized within 22nd International 
Morphology Meeting : Atypical Morphology
Budapest, Hungary, May 28th - 31st, 2026

Meeting URL: https://nytud.hun-ren.hu/en/event/22nd-international-morphology-meeting-2

Workshop date will be specified later by the conference organizers.

Rationale

The interaction between phonology and morphology has been at the heart of generative and post-generative linguistics since the inception of both fields. Despite recurring claims about the autonomy of morphology (Aronoff 1994; Booij 2018) and the modularity of phonology (Kiparsky 1982, 1985; Zwicky & Pullum (1986; Scheer 2012), recent work across language families shows that many morphological phenomena cannot be properly understood without considering their phonological embedding. Conversely, phonological processes often reveal morphological triggers that challenge a strict separation between the two components.

This workshop proposes to revisit the phonomorphological interface in light of opaque processes, floating morphemes, and doubling phenomena, addressing the central questions:

• To what extent can morphology be considered autonomous if many of its realizations are contingent on phonological structure (as in French liaison, cliticization, or Italian syntactic doubling)?

• Are there phonological processes—such as metaphony, apophony, or sandhi—that can only be accounted for via morphosyntactic features?

• How do opaque alternations, such as vowel harmony/metaphony across unrelated families (Romance, Semitic, Altaic), challenge modular architectures of grammar?

• What role do “floating” or “defective” morphemes play in testing the boundaries between abstract phonological representations and morphological content?

We aim to create a forum that bridges descriptive data (from Romance, Germanic, Semitic, Bantu, Japonic, and beyond) and theoretical frameworks (Lexical Phonology, Prosodic Morphology, Stratal OT, Distributed Morphology, and representational approaches).

Empirical Anchors

• Floating morphemes and defective segments (French liaison, floating tones in Bantu, nasal mutation in Celtic) show phonological processes activated by non-phonetic morphological material.

• Syntactic Doubling in Southern Italian dialects demonstrates how phonological realization is sensitive to morphosyntactic boundary conditions, raising questions about prosodic recursion and modular interaction.

• Metaphony and apophony across Romance, Germanic, and Semitic reveal opaque phonological alternations driven by morphological categories, often defying neat modular separation.

• Opacity in the interface (stress-conditioned allomorphy, morphological blocking of otherwise general phonological processes) highlights the theoretical tension between modular architectures and emergentist/non-modular views.

Goals

The workshop will bring together phonologists and morphologists to:

1. Compare case studies of phono-morphological interaction across families.

2. Evaluate the evidence for and against autonomy/modularity.

3. Reassess whether the concept of “phonomorphology” requires dedicated theoretical status.

References (indicative)

Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

Booij, G. (2017). The construction of words. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-245.

Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2017). Stratal Phonology. In S. J. Hannahs, & A. R. K. Bosch (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory (pp. 100-134). (Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics). Routledge. Cabredo & Zribi-Hertz (2014). Morphology-Phonology Interface in Romance.

Kiparsky, P. (1982). ‘Lexical Morphology and Phonology’, in In-Seok Yang for the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981 (vol. 1). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, 3-91.

Kiparsky, P. (1985). ‘Some consequences of Lexical Phonology’, Phonology Yearbook 2: 85-138.

Zwicky, Arnold M.  and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1986). The Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax: Introductory remarks. Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Tobias Scheer (2012). Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. Vol.2 of A Lateral Theory of phonology. de Gruyter, 2012.

Draft Schedule (Full Day Workshop)

Morning (9:00 – 13:30)

• 9:00–9:15 – Opening remarks (organizers)

• 9:15–9:45 – Invited Talk 1 (Keynote: Floating morphemes and opacity in Romance)

• 9:45–10:15 – Talk 1 (20 min + 10 min discussion)

• 10:15–10:45 – Talk 2 (20+10)

• 10:45–11:15 – Coffee break

• 11:15–11:45 – Talk 3 (20+10)

• 11:45–12:15 – Talk 4 (20+10)

• 12:15–12:45 – Talk 5 (20+10)

• 12:45–13:30 – General discussion

Afternoon (14:30 – 18:00)

• 14:30–15:00 – Invited Talk 2 (Keynote: Modularity vs. Emergentist Approaches)

• 15:00–15:30 – Talk 6 (20+10)

• 15:30–16:00 – Talk 7 (20+10)

• 16:00–16:30 – Coffee break

• 16:30–17:00 – Talk 8 (20+10)

• 17:00–17:30 – Talk 9 (20+10)

• 17:30–18:00 – Roundtable discussion and closing

Abstract Submissions 

If you wish to contribute, please send an abstract  to mrusso [at] univ-paris8.fr ()

according to the following instructions: 

Deadline: November 30, 2025 

Length:  2 pages max. 

Font:  Times New Roman 12 

References:  on a separate page