Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T03:31:40.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A revised typology of opaque generalisations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2007

Eric Baković
Eric Baković
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is about opaque interactions between phonological processes in the two senses defined by Kiparsky (1971, 1973) and discussed in much recent work on the topic, most notably McCarthy (1999) : underapplication opacity, whereby a process appears to have failed to apply in expected contexts on the surface, and overapplication opacity, whereby a process appears to have applied in unexpected contexts on the surface. Specifically, I demonstrate that there are three distinct types of overapplication opacity in addition to the only case discussed and properly categorised as such in the literature, counterbleeding. The analysis of each type of opacity in terms of rule-based serialism and in terms of Optimality Theory is discussed, emphasising the strengths and weaknesses of the two frameworks in each case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , August 2007 , pp. 217 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Ambrazas, Vytautas (ed.) (1997). Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2005). Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22. 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (2006). Elsewhere effects in Optimality Theory. In Baković, Eric, Ito, Junko & McCarthy, John (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/4. 23–70.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2007). Hiatus resolution and incomplete identity. In Martínez-Gil, Fernando & Colina, Sonia (eds.) Optimality-theoretic studies in Spanish phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (to appear). On ‘elsewhere’: disjunctivity and blocking in phonological theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barlow, Jessica (2007). Grandfather effects: a longitudinal case study of the phonological acquisition of intervocalic consonants in English. Language Acquisition 14. 121–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans (1972). Remarks on the regular plural formation of English nouns. Language and Literature 3. 39–42.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2003). The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Variation within Optimality Theory: proceedings of the Stockholm workshop. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. 25–36.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris, Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith (1995). 245–306.Google Scholar
Dambriūnas, Leonardas, Klimas, Antanas & Schmalstieg, William R. (1966). Introduction to Modern Lithuanian. Brooklyn: Franciscan Fathers Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Gierut, Judith A. (2007). Optimality Theory: phonological acquisition and disorders. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) (2003). The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew (2000). Turbid ouput representations and the unity of opacity. NELS 30. 231–245.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew & Paul, Smolensky (1999). Opacity and turbid representations in Optimality Theory. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (ed.) (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Golibart, Pablo (1976). Cibaeño vocalization. MA thesis, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Guitart, Jorge M. (1981). Some theoretical implications of liquid gliding in Cibaeño Dominican Spanish. In Contreras, Heles & Klausenburger, Jurgen (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th anniversary symposium on Romance languages. Seattle: University of Washington. 223–228.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1995). Feature geometry and feature spreading. LI 26. 1–46.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (2005). Palatalization/velar softening: what it is and what is tells us about the nature of language. LI 36. 23–41.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, Vaux, Bert & Wolfe, Andrew (2000). On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. LI 31. 387–444.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. (1995). Projection and Edge Marking in the computation of stress in Spanish. In Goldsmith (1995). 867–887.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. (1970). A peeking rule in Cupeño. LI 1. 534–539.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. & Purnell, Thomas C. (1997). Metrical tone and the Elsewhere Condition. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 129–156.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, & Vijver, van de (2003). 271–303.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1972). Lithuanian phonology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2. 1–85.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1971). Unmarked bleeding orders. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1.1. 8–28. Reprinted in Kisseberth, Charles (ed.) (1973). Studies in generative phonology. Champaign, Ill.: Linguistic Research. 1–12.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, Reinhart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William (ed.) A survey of linguistic science. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program. 576–642.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions in linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (forthcoming). Paradigms and opacity. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. LI 27. 341–350.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. LI 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. (1961). The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003a). Sympathy, cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York gambit. In , Féry & Vijver, van de (2003). 23–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003b). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje (1996). A short grammar of Lithuanian. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliottt & Paul, Smolensky (2002). Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. WCCFL 21. 306–319.Google Scholar
Odden, David (2005). Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2002). Coronalen in het stad-Utrechts en de structuur van het fonologisch woord. In Taeldeman, J. & van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) De fonologie van de Nederlandse dialecten en fonologische theorievorming. Taal en Tongval (thematic issue 13). 110–128.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan (1995). Correspondence and identity constraints in two-level Optimality Theory. WCCFL 14. 399–413.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan (2000). Review of Vaux (1998). Phonology 17. 137–142.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jay (2002). Feature classes in phonology. Lg 78. 81–110.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (1999). Austronesian nasal substitution and other N effects. In Kager, René, Hulst, Harry van der & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 310–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poliquin, Gabriel (2006). Canadian French vowel harmony. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Available as ROA-861 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). Model theory and the content of OT constraints. Phonology 19. 361–393.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
Sanders, Nathan (2003). Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available as ROA-603 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1993). Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop. Available as ROA-87 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1995). On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Available as ROA-86 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1997). Constraint interaction in generative grammar II: local conjunction or random rules in Universal Grammar. Paper presented at the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Ronald (1997). A case for enriched inputs. Available as ROA-193 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (1998). The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2000). Targeted constraints: an approach to contextual neutralization in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2001). Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints. Phonology 18. 147–197.Google Scholar
Yavaş, Mehmet (1980). Borrowing and its implications for Turkish phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1970). The Free-Ride Principle and two rules of complete assimilation in English. CLS 6. 579–588.Google Scholar