Morphology made (too) simple? Phonological problems with and a solution to the analytic/non-analytic distinction

This article addresses some shortcomings in the standard theory of the phonology-morphology interface within Government Phonology, which is built on the dichotomy of analytic/non-analytic morphology. I argue that many cases which had previously been thought to be analytic and therefore to require a cyclic application of phonology should be reinterpreted without: Many constructions that seemed to consist of domains inside domains are better understood without that internal structure. This alternative avoids some contradictory results of the standard model, which incorrectly precludes certain kinds of interactions between the nested domains. The reinterpretation also makes better sense of the phonological shape of (allegedly analytic) affixes by taking into account phonotactic possibilities of clusters with more than three consonants, which had so no far not received a satisfactory analysis in the Government Phonology literature.