2018
DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00283
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Output-Drivenness and Partial Phonological Features

Abstract: Tesar (2014) develops the notion of output-drivenness, provides guarantees that Optimality Theory grammars satisfy it, and demonstrates its learnability implications. This article discusses the extension of Tesar’s theory to a representational framework with partial phonological features. It considers a hierarchy of notions of output-drivenness of increasing strength that can be defined within this extended framework. It determines the strongest notion of output-drivenness that holds in the case of partial fea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These processes are widely discussed in the literature including deletion, substitution, assimilation and epenthesis. Several interesting studies have been conducted cross-linguistically, providing detailed analysis of these processes (Black, 1974; Blevins and Garrett, 1998, 2004; Clark, 2009; Hume, 1998; Ingram, 1981, 1986; McCarthy, 1989, 2000; Mielke and Hume, 2001; Muller, 1998; Thompson and Thompson, 1969; Uwaezuoke and Onwudiwe, 2022). Similarly, Welna (2002) provided a detailed analysis of metathesis process considering the temporal and spatial development and spread of the sounds change.…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These processes are widely discussed in the literature including deletion, substitution, assimilation and epenthesis. Several interesting studies have been conducted cross-linguistically, providing detailed analysis of these processes (Black, 1974; Blevins and Garrett, 1998, 2004; Clark, 2009; Hume, 1998; Ingram, 1981, 1986; McCarthy, 1989, 2000; Mielke and Hume, 2001; Muller, 1998; Thompson and Thompson, 1969; Uwaezuoke and Onwudiwe, 2022). Similarly, Welna (2002) provided a detailed analysis of metathesis process considering the temporal and spatial development and spread of the sounds change.…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…´* The first two constraints are equivalent to DEP-F and MAX-F in (4) -recall also Table 2, showing the same candidate comparisons for both [voi] and [cont] -but the constraint labels are respectively superscripted with 's' and 'w' here to explicitly indicate that DEP s -F regulates Magri's (2018b) strong featural identity, violated by both the feature-changing (a,b) and feature-filling mappings (c,d), while MAX w -F regulates weak featural identity, violated only by the feature-changing mappings (a,b). The other three constraints are described here in the order shown in Table 9.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third result is our finding that chain shift maps and saltation maps are pathologically yoked together in the full factorial typology predicted by Reiss's system: there are two non-interacting sets of ranking conditions of the relevant constraints yielding a chain shift map, and these are the same two non-interacting sets of ranking conditions that yield a saltation map. Toward the end of the paper we offer some remarks on the output-drivenness of Reiss's proposed system based on Magri's (2018b) extension of this concept to underspecification, and a brief discussion of how chain shift and saltation maps can be disentangled with alternative definitions of featural faithfulness constraints (or pairings thereof).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evaluating candidates with features that have no value can sometimes introduce complications, as has been shown by Magri (2018). In particular, Magri defines a partial feature to be one which can be evaluated by constraints without having an assigned value; these are distinguished from total features, which always have an assigned value when evaluated by constraints.…”
Section: Unset Features and Candidate Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%