Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:08:56.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: the paradox of fed counterfeeding*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2010

Darya Kavitskaya  and
Peter Staroverov
Darya Kavitskaya
Affiliation:
Yale University
Peter Staroverov
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Opaque interactions have long been recognised as a challenge for Optimality Theory. We show that although there has been considerable effort to bring opacity into the scope of Optimality Theory, some types of process interactions are still problematic for the theory. Based on data from Tundra Nenets, we present and analyse a case of fed counterfeeding in which a process A feeds a process B, and B counterfeeds A. We argue that such interactions present a challenge to Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains (OT-CC; McCarthy 2007) since the two interactions impose contradictory ranking requirements. We propose an extension of the theory that does not abandon its main assumptions and that makes fed counterfeeding analysable in OT-CC. This extension is based on the assumption that constraints can make reference to the position specified in a previous step in the derivation.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 255 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alderete, John D. (2001). Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18. 201–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (2007). A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24. 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (2009). Opacity deconstructed. Ms, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (forthcoming). Stratal optimality theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2006). Constraints on phonological interactions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. (1974). The cycle in phonology: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. LI 5. 39–60.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2001). Uh-oh: glottal stops and syllable organization in Sulawesi. In Hume, Elizabeth, Smith, Norval & de Weijer, Jeroen van (eds.) Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. 77–90.Google Scholar
Castrén, M. Alexander (1854). Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. Edited by Schiefner, Anton. St Petersburg: Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-542 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2003). Fixed ranking and the ‘Too Many Solutions’ problem. Handout for paper presented at the CASTL Kick-off Conference, Tromsø.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios & Lombardi, Linda (1999). Consonant transparency and vowel echo. NELS 29:2. 81–95.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2003). Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth (1973). Deep–surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: an Australian example. In Sebeok, Thomas (ed.) Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 11. The Hague: Mouton. 401–458.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike (2004). Rhythmic vowel deletion in OT: syncope in Latin. Probus 16. 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Haike (2008). Sympathy, comparative markedness, OT-CC and Latin syncope. Probus 20. 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha (1984). Problems of Nenets phonology. In Hajdú, Péter & Honti, László (eds.) Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 19–28.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha (1986). Glottal stop in Nenets. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (to appear). Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution. NELS 39.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1997). Rhythmic vowel deletion in Optimality Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 463–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Aaron F. (2008). Noniterativity is an emergent property of grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya (2010). Acoustic correlates of Tundra Nenets stress. Ms, Yale University.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya & Staroverov, Peter (2008). Opacity in Tundra Nenets. WCCFL 27. 274–282.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (forthcoming). Paradigms and opacity. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Klokeid, Terry J. (1976). Topics in Lardil grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lehtisalo, T. (1956). Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa (1995). The representation of glottals in Oromo. Phonology 12. 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2006). Restraint of analysis. In Baković, Eric, Ito, Junko & McCarthy, John J. (eds.) Wondering at the natural fecundity of things: essays in honor of Alan Prince. Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. http://repositories.cdlib.org/lrc/prince/10. 195–219.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008a). The serial interaction of stress and syncope. NLLT 26. 499–546.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008b). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2004). Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngakulmungan Kangka, Leman [Anna, Ash, Ken, Hale, Kenneth, Jacobs (Kulthangarr), David, Nash, Norvin, Richards, Lindsay, Roughsey (Burrurr), Jane, Simpson et al. ] (1997). Lardil dictionary. Gununa, Queensland: Mornington Shire Council.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2007). Restricting repairs. Ms, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002). Arguing Optimality. In Carpenter, Angela C., Coetzee, Andries W. & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 269–304.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1993). On identifying basic vowel distinctions in Tundra Nenets. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 51. 177–187.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1997). Tundra Nenets inflection. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1998a). A morphological dictionary of Tundra Nenets. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1998b). Nenets. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.) The Uralic languages. London & New York: Routledge. 516–547.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (2008). Tundra Nenets grammatical sketch. Available (April 2010) at http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/sketch.html.Google Scholar
Staroverov, Peter (2006). Vowel deletion and stress in Tundra Nenets. In Gyuris, Beáta (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st Central European Student Conference in Linguistics. Available (April 2010) at http://www.nytud.hu/cescl/.Google Scholar
Staroverov, Peter (2010). Too-many-solutions and reference to position in Serial OT. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1. Available (April 2010) at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/23.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987). Locality conditions and feature geometry. NELS 17. 595–617.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1947). Ocherk grammatiki nenetskogo (iurako-samoedskogo) iazyka. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1956). Materialy i issledovaniya po yazyku nentsev. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1965). Nenetsko-russkii slovar'. Leningrad: Prosveshchenie.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2010). Limits on global rules in OT-CC: mutual counterfeeding, self-counterfeeding, and mutual counterbleeding. Ms, Yale University.Google Scholar