Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:46:19.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interacting processes in phonological theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2018

Külli Prillop
Külli Prillop*
Affiliation:
University of Tartu
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article introduces basic principles of a generative theory of phonology that unifies aspects of parallel constraint-based theories and serial rule-based theories. In the core of the grammar are phonological processes that consist of a markedness constraint and a repair. Processes are universal, but every language activates a different set, and applies them in different orders. Phonological processes may be in bleeding or feeding relations. These two basic relations are sufficient to define more complicated interactions, such as blocking, derived and non-derived environment effects, chain shifts and allophony.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 441 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Albright, Adam, Magri, Giorgio & Michaels, Jennifer (2008). Modeling doubly marked lags with a split additive model. In Chan, Harvey, Jacob, Heather & Kapia, Enkeleida (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 36–47.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Shapiro, Naomi Tachikawa (2017). The interaction of stress and syllabification: parallel or serial? WCCFL 34. 52–61.Google Scholar
Árnason, Kristján (2011). The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (1995). Geminate shortening in Fula. In Akinlabi, Akinbiyi (ed.) Theoretical approaches to African linguistics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. 239–254.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2007). A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24. 217–259.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2011). Opacity and ordering. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 40–67.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2013). Blocking and complementarity in phonological theory. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester & University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I & Huffman, Marie (1997). Syllable weight: convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14. 47–82.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2001). Zero derivations. LI 32. 658–677.Google Scholar
Butska, Luba (1998). Faithfulness to [voice] in Ukrainian: an analysis of voicing alternations in Optimality Theory. In Artstein, Ron & Holler, Madeleine (eds.) RuLing Papers 1: Working Papers from Rutgers University. New Brunswick: Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University. 59–73.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea (2005). Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. (1996). Resolving hiatus. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. (2008). Cumulative faithfulness effects: opaque or transparent? Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 119–145.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew (2000). Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. NELS 30. 231–245.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris (1996). Direct optimality theory: representation as pure markedness. Lg 72. 713–748.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2003). Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gress-Wright, Jonathan (2010). Opacity and transparency in phonological change. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike (2011). Understanding phonology. 3rd edn. Great Britain: Hodder Arnold.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
Halle, Morris & Idsardi, William J. (1997). r, hypercorrection, and the Elsewhere Condition. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 331–348.Google Scholar
Hauser, Ivy, Hughto, Coral & Somerday, Megan (2015). Faith-UO: counterfeeding in Harmonic Serialism. In Albright, Adam & Fullwood, Michelle A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v2i0.3764.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2001). On the limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 141–185.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. (2000). Clarifying opacity. The Linguistic Review 17. 337–350.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2011). Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution. NELS 39. 429–440.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (1999). The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya & Staroverov, Peter (2010). When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: the paradox of fed counterfeeding. Phonology 27. 255–288.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank (2006). Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Vogel, Ralf & Schlesewsky, Matthias (eds.) Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 270–287.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973a). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3–135.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973b). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. LI 27. 341–350.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1997). Contrastiveness and faithfulness. Phonology 14. 83–111.Google Scholar
Kosecka, Justyna (2014). Coronal palatalization in Kashubian. Studies in Polish Linguistics 9. 137–161.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (2001). Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13–45.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2012). The phonology of contrast. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). Harmonic serialism and parallelism. NELS 30. 501–524.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271–319.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010a). An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 1010–1018.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010b). Studying Gen. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 13:2. 3–12.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2016). The theory and practice of Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy & Pater (2016). 47–87.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) (2016). Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1999). Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology. In Kager et al. (1999). 218–309.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (2000). The puzzle of Kashmiri stress: implications for weight theory. Phonology 17. 365–396.Google Scholar
Newton, B. E. (1971). Ordering paradoxes in phonology. JL 7. 31–53.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole (1988). On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6. 71–97.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (1999). Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC̥ effects. In Kager et al. (1999). 310–343.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. (1999). At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16. 143–185.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. JL 12. 83–102.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2003). Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. LI 34. 601–629.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin (1997). Optimality Theory and morphology. In Archangeli, Diana & Terry Langendoen, D. (eds.) Optimality Theory: an overview. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 102–133.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (1994). A unified analysis of crosslinguistic morphological gemination. In Ackema, Peter & Schoorlemmer, Maaike (eds.) ConSole I proceedings. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 265–283.Google Scholar
Shrofel, Salina (1980). Mutual bleeding: a case from Island Lake Ojibwa. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 141–155.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: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. LI 29. 229–268.Google Scholar
Torres-Tamarit, Francesc (2016). Compensatory and opaque vowel lengthening in Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy & Pater (2016). 301–326.Google Scholar
Viitso, Tiit-Rein (2003). Rise and development of the Estonian language. In Erelt, Mati (ed.) Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. 130–230.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2001). Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints. Phonology 18. 147–197.Google Scholar