Opacity and Ordering

Baković, Eric

doi:10.1002/9781444343069.ch2

Cited by 53 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the most important directions for future work is to extend this current approach to various other cases of opaque interactions between phonological processes in the languages of the world. These processes are not uniform in their structure and in the challenges they pose for OT (Baković 2011), and further study is needed to see what properties indexed constraint approaches must (minimally) possess to be able to handle various types of opaque interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalizing the connection between opaque and exceptionful generalizations

Nazarov

2019

TWPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an account of an opaque generalization (Canadian Raising; Chambers 1973) in terms of indexed constraints in OT (Pater 2000, 2010). This approach formalizes the idea, championed in previous work on Canadian Raising (Mielke et al. 2003; Pater 2014) and opacity more broadly (Lubowicz 2003; Sanders 2003, 2006), that opaque generalizations have a stronger connection to the lexicon and/or exceptionality than to the grammar proper. These previous approaches tend to yield non-restrictive accounts of opaque generalizations (ones that do not easily extend the pattern to novel items), which I show also holds for an account of opaque Canadian Raising in terms of constraints indexed to whole morphemes (Pater 2000, 2010). To counter this, I propose so-called extended indexation: a blend of segmentally local indexation (Temkin-Martínez 2010; Rubach 2013, 2016; Round 2017) and binary indexation (Becker 2009) that goes back to the account for exceptions from Chomsky and Halle (1968). I show that this kind of indexation offers a restrictive account of opaque Canadian Raising, compatible with the fact that Raising is productive (Idsardi 2006).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalizing the connection between opaque and exceptionful generalizations

Nazarov

2019

TWPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the winning candidate resembles a ‘Duke-of-York gambit’ (e.g. Baković, 2011; McCarthy, 2003; Pullum, 1976) in that a coronal fricative first changes to a stop and then back again to a fricative, albeit with a different place relative to the input.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The non-occurrence of this mapping was surprising because feeding interactions are usually associated with transparent (surface-true) generalizations and are presumed to represent unmarked states (e.g. Baković, 2011; Kiparsky, 1965, 1971). The absence of this feeding interaction is even more surprising from the point of view of a conspiracy because conspiracies are understood to yield transparent outputs (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The coronal fricative problem

Dinnsen

Dow

Gierut

et al. 2013

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines a range of predicted versus attested error patterns involving coronal fricatives (e.g. [s, z, θ, ð]) as targets and repairs in the early sound systems of monolingual English-acquiring children. Typological results are reported from a cross-sectional study of 234 children with phonological delays (ages 3 years; 0 months to 7;9). Our analyses revealed different instantiations of a putative developmental conspiracy within and across children. Supplemental longitudinal evidence is also presented that replicates the cross-sectional results, offering further insight into the life-cycle of the conspiracy. Several of the observed typological anomalies are argued to follow from a modified version of Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains (McCarthy, 2007).

show abstract

“…Counterfeeding is when P fails to feed Q, meaning that Q maps cbde to cbdf before P gets a chance to create more cbde outputs to also be inputs to Q. This makes the application of Q non-surface-true, a characteristic of counterfeeding (McCarthy, 1999) as well as of other blocking interactions that are not predicted by conjunctive rule ordering (non-derived environment blocking, do-something-except-when blocking, and disjunctive blocking; see Baković, 2011Baković, , 2013a. Counterbleeding is when P fails to bleed R, meaning that R maps cade to cadf in time for P to then map cadf to cbdf.…”

Section: Swapping As (Clockwise) Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interaction in Lomongo has been described simply as counterfeeding in e.g. Baković (2011Baković ( , 2013a, but proper attention to the classically-ignored output relations reveals that it is formally distinct from counterfeeding. In order for this interaction to be converted to counterfeeding, an o-provision crop(del)-arrow would need to be added from input wbi to output wi in Figure 22 above, thus generalizing deletion such that it applies when the preceding segment is a vowel or a glide (=[-Cons] ) , not just a vowel (= V /[+syll]).…”

Section: More Swappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rule Interaction Conversion Operations

Baković

Blumenfeld

2019

loquens

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different types of interactions between pairs of phonological rules can be converted into one another using three formal operations that we discuss in this article. One of these conversion operations, rule re-ordering (here called swapping), is well-known; another, flipping, is a more recent finding (Hein et al., 2014). We introduce a third conversion operation that we call cropping. Formal relationships among the members of the set of rule interactions, expanded by cropping beyond the classical four (feeding, bleeding, counterfeeding, and counterbleeding) to include four more (mutual bleeding, seeding, counterseeding, and merger), are identified and clarified. We show that these conversion operations exhaustively delimit the set of possible pairwise rule interactions predicted by conjunctive rule ordering (Chomsky & Halle, 1968), and that each interaction is related to each of the others by the application of at most two conversion operations.

show abstract

Opacity and Ordering

Cited by 53 publications

References 47 publications

Formalizing the connection between opaque and exceptionful generalizations

Formalizing the connection between opaque and exceptionful generalizations

The coronal fricative problem

Rule Interaction Conversion Operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About