Phase Cycles, Φ-cycles, and Phonological (in)activity∗

An essential question for many theories of grammar is how the phonological properties of a complex form relate to the phonological representations of its constituent parts. A working hypothesis (with an analogue on the semantic side) is that the phonological form of a complex expression is affected not only by the phonology of its individual parts, but also by the way in which the complex form is assembled. Determining (i) the division of labor between these two components of the theory, and (ii) specifying how information about combinatorics affects phonological representations are two major goals of research in this area. Although it is in principle compatible with a number of different assumptions about the operation of the phonology, Distributed Morphology is centered on the idea that investigations of phonological form are inextricably linked to the theory of morpheme composition. In particular, a consequence of the assumption that morphemes are syntactic objects that are combined in syntactic derivations is that part of the theory of phonology interacts with broader issues in syntactic derivation, like phase-based cyclicity. Lowenstamm’s recent work (2010, 2012) develops important insights on this theme. The main focus of his 2010 paper is the observation that there are prima facie difficulties in reconciling phonological effects attributed to cyclic derivation with recent theories that posit the cyclic spell out of syntactic structure. My goal in this paper is to look at the nature of these difficulties. Although I will work towards a different set of conclusions