Irreducible parallelism in phonology

A Case for Parallelism: Reduplication-repair Interaction in Maragoli

“…The data give rise to paradoxical, opportunistic ordering of phonological processes, with changes applying in whichever order yields optimal surface onsets: in one set of inputs, copying before repairing avoids a complex onset, while in another set, repairing before copying avoids an onsetless syllable and maximizes word-internal self-similarity. Maragoli reduplication-repair interaction thus adds to a growing number of cases of conspiracy of procedures, in the sense of Adler & Zymet (2017): the grammar applies one procedure, repair followed by copying, unless the result is a suboptimal onset; in such case, the grammar instead applies a different procedure, namely copying followed by hiatus repair. The data, though fully analyzable in Parallel Optimality Theory, produce constraint-ranking paradoxes in Harmonic Serialism with Serial Template Satisfaction, and therefore constitute evidence for irreducible parallelism (McCarthy 2013).…”

“…Barker 1964, Steriade 1988, Hayes & Abad 1989, Fleischhacker 2005). The Maragoli reduplication-repair interaction constitutes an example of a conspiracy of procedures, in the sense of Adler & Zymet (2017): the grammar applies one procedure, hiatus repair followed by copying, unless the result is an extra complex onset; in such case, the grammar instead applies a different procedure, namely copying followed by hiatus repair. Such a conspiracy presents no issue in Parallel OT, since the candidates [viː-vj-ɔ] and [jɔː-j-ɔ] are available to be compared against *[vjɔː-vj-ɔ] and *[eː-j-ɔ] respectively.…”

Serialism and Opacity in Phonological Theory

“…HS has also been successfully applied to the problem of local optionality (Kimper 2011) and to a range of morphology-phonology interactions (Hall et al 2018, Lamont 2021. To a great extent, HS retains parallel OT's ability to handle nonuniformity (see, e.g., for Yowlumne analysis) and other desirable effects that arise from constraint competition, though the frameworks also diverge in some of these respects (e.g., Adler & Zymet 2021). In the rest of this section I summarize the extent of HS's capacity to handle residual opacity.…”

Morphologically conditioned phonology with two triggers

“…The second option relies on readjustment rules, or phonological rules sensitive to the morphemes present (Embick & Halle 2005). There are a number of reasons to believe that a constraint-based phonology, such as the one adopted in CBP, makes better predictions than a rule-based one (Prince & Smolensky 1993, Adler & Zymet 2020. Additionally, there is no theory of what readjustment rules can look like, thus there is no limitation to what a readjustment rule can do (see Siddiqi 2009).…”