The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology

Gafos, Adamantios I.

doi:10.4324/9781315053165

Cited by 108 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 Similar process can be found in a related language, Gaagudju (Gafos 1996). 15 To clarify, this SFST has more sates and transitions in order to ensure that only word-initial apical is targeted, but these do not increase the computational complexity.…”

Section: Gooniyandimentioning

confidence: 93%

Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality

Luo

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Johnson (1972) and Kaplan & Kay (1994) showed that phonological processes belong to the computational class of regular relations. This paper provides a computational analysis of longdistance consonant agreement and shows that it belongs to a more restricted computational class called subsequential. This paper further argues that subsequentiality is a desirable computational characterization of long-distance consonant agreement for the following reasons. First, it is sufficiently expressive. Second, it is restrictive as it accounts for the absence of pathological patterns like Majority Rules and Sour Grapes from the typology (Heinz & Lai 2013), standing in contrast to Agreement by Correspondence analysis in Optimality Theory (Rose & Walker 2004;Hansson 2007).

show abstract

Section: Gooniyandimentioning

confidence: 93%

Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality

Luo

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long-distance phonotactics have long been a topic of debate in the literature of theoretical phonology (e.g., Jensen 1974, Steriade 1987a, 1987b, Odden 1994, Gafos 1999, Ní Chiosáin & Padgett 2001, Nevins 2010. While there exist many proposals for constraintbased analyses of consonant harmony as well as dissimilation, we focus here on the predictions of the Agreement by Correspondence framework (ABC; Rose & Walker 2004/2010a.…”

Section: Harmony As Agreement By Correspondencementioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Distance Phonotactics as Tier-Based Strictly 2-Local Languages

McMullin

Hansson

2016

AMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shows that the properties of locality observed for patterns of long-distance consonant agreement and disagreement belong to a well-defined and relatively simple class of subregular formal languages (stringsets) called the Tier-based Strictly 2-Local languages, and argues that analyzing them as such has desirable theoretical implications. Specifically, treating the two elements of a long-distance dependency as adjacent segments on the computationally defined notion of a tier allows for a unified account of locality that necessarily extends to the cross-linguistically variable behavior of neutral segments (transparency and blocking). This result is significant in light of the long-standing and persistent problems that long-distance dependencies have raised for phonological theory, with current approaches still predicting several pathological patterns that have little or no empirical support.

show abstract

“…(1) Finnish: Front/Back Harmony (Local) a. pøytae-nae 'table-ess' *pøytae-na b. pouta-na 'fine weather-ess' *pouta-nae This assumption has been implicit in much of the literature on vowel harmony (Archangeli & Pulleyblank, 1994;Bakovic, 2000;Gafos, 1999;Ni Chiosain & Padgett, 2001, and others), but see e.g., Boersma (1998); Riggle (1999) for explicit analyses based on articulatory ease. Another perspective on the same source of explanation can be found in Evolutionary Phonology (Blevins, 2004;Ohala, 1994, and others), where the genesis of harmony is attributed to listeners' misinterpretation of gradient coarticulation as categorical assimilation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not crazy after all these years? Perceptual grounding for long-distance vowel harmony

Kimper

2017

Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-distance (or 'transparent') vowel harmony systems have frequently been considered 'unnatural' and analyzed as 'crazy rules' (Bach & Harms, 1972) because they violate the principle of strict locality. Articulatory explanations for the phonetic grounding of vowel harmony are unable to extend to non-local processes, and attempts to re-analyze cases of transparent harmony as strictly local have been largely unsuccessful. In this paper, I present experimental evidence suggesting that vowel harmony may be perceptually (as well as articulatorily) grounded, and that this source of phonetic grounding does in fact extend to long-distance as well as local harmony. In a series of four experiments, subjects were presented with a nonsense word followed by an isolated vowel, and asked to report whether the isolated vowel had occurred in the preceding word. Subjects were consistently faster and more accurate in nonsense words which exhibited vowel harmony along the relevant feature dimension, regardless of locality. A fourth experiment included a task requiring subjects to identify whether the vowel occurred in a specific syllable, and here too they showed better performance on items with vowel harmony along the relevant feature dimension. I argue that strict locality is not a necessary component of a phonetically grounded theory of vowel harmony, suggesting that long-distance harmony can be analyzed as an explicitly non-local process without abandoning phonetic grounding.

show abstract

The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology

Cited by 108 publications

References 0 publications

Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality

Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality

Long-Distance Phonotactics as Tier-Based Strictly 2-Local Languages

Not crazy after all these years? Perceptual grounding for long-distance vowel harmony

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About