Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:09:04.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limits on global rules in Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

Matthew Wolf
Matthew Wolf
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains (OT-CC; McCarthy 2007), candidates are multi-step derivations, and precedence constraints, which regulate the order of derivational steps, can inspect entire candidate derivations. This means that OT-CC opens the door to certain kinds of ‘global rules’ – that is, effects in which the application or non-application of a process is decided with crucial reference to derivational history. This paper investigates what limits may exist on OT-CC's global rule powers, focusing on two forms of opacity which are possible under a theory where all rules apply simultaneously, but not under sequential rule application: mutual counterfeeding and mutual counterbleeding. It is shown that the original version of OT-CC allows none, but that each of them could be made possible with relatively simple revisions to the original theory. Possible examples of these forms of opacity are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , May 2011 , pp. 87 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Anderson, Stephen R. (1974). The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Browne, Wayles (1973). On keeping exchange rules in Czech. Papers in Linguistics 6. 445–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (2007a). A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24. 217–259.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2007b). Mutually-assured destruction. Post on Phonoloblog, February 19. Available January 2011 at http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2007/02/19.Google Scholar
Ballard, W. L. (1971). Simultaneous ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 37. 188–189.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-234 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Tej K. & Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1972). Nasalization in Hindi: a reconsideration. Papers in Linguistics 5. 202–212.Google Scholar
Bliese, Loren F. (1975). ‘Afar vowel dissimilation: a problem in rule ordering. Anthropological Linguistics 17. 102–106.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1939). Menomini morphophonemics. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8. 105–115.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2001). Phonology–semantics interaction in OT, and its acquisition. University of Alberta Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics 6. 24–35. Available as ROA-369 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Bright, William (1957). The Karok language. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris (1989). Why phonology is different. LI 20. 51–70.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. (1996). Resolving hiatus. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Available as ROA-215 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (1968). The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34. 115–136.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1972). Studies in semantics in generative grammar. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. (1974). Constraints on global rules in phonology. Lg 50. 29–51.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2009). Syllabification and stress-epenthesis interactions in Harmonic Serialism. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-1047 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (2008). Generative phonology in the late 1940s. Phonology 25. 37–59.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Hall, Nancy (2009). Acoustics of epenthetic vowels in Lebanese Arabic. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 203–225.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. LI 28. 373–422.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Zeps, Valdis (1966). A survey of Latvian morphophonemics. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 83. 104–113.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1994). An OT account of variability in Walmatjari stress. Ms, University of Arizona. Available as ROA-20 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen (1993). The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. (1942). Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Lg 18. 169–180.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. (1970). A peeking rule in Cupeño. LI 1. 534–539.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin (1972). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1993). Problems for rule ordering in phonology: two Bantu test cases. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The last phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 195–222.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & de Vijver, Ruben van (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kenstowicz, Michael (1976). Rule application in pregenerative American phonology. In Koutsoudas, Andreas (ed.) The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 259–280.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1970). Rule ordering and the asymmetry hypothesis. CLS 6. 504–519.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3–136.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2001). Stratal OT or Sympathy? Handout of paper presented at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. LI 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. (1973). Is rule ordering necessary in phonology? In Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Saporta, Sol (eds.) Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 418–441.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. & Abasheikh, Mohamed Imam (1975). The perfect stem in Chi-Mwi:ni and global rules. Studies in African Linguistics 6. 249–266.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald & Noll, Craig (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1970). Global rules. Lg 46. 627–639.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1972). The global nature of the Nuclear Stress Rule. Lg 48. 285–303.Google Scholar
Lee, Minkyung (2007). OT-CC and feeding opacity in Javanese. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 13. 333–350. Available January 2011 at http://society.kisti.re.kr/~pmc/work/vol_13_2/08.doc.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Twila (1972). Some arguments against ordered rules. Lg 48. 541–550.Google Scholar
Levine, Arvin (1976). Why argue about rule ordering? Linguistic Analysis 2. 115–124.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1971). Generative phonology. In Dingwall, William Orr (ed.) A survey of linguistic science. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program. 498–564.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. Vol. 1: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John (1996). Remarks on phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. In Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.) Studies in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the 2nd Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics, Sophia Antipolis. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 215–243.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. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010). Studying Gen. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 13:2. 3–12.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
McCawley, James D. (1968). The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1973). Global rules and Bangubangu tone. In Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (eds.) Issues in phonological theory: proceedings of the Urbana Conference on Phonology. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1975). Review of The sound pattern of English. In Goyvaerts, Didier L. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) Essays on The Sound Pattern of English. Gent: E. Story-Scientia. 145–197.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary (1973). Some theoretical implications of Greenlandic phonology. Papers in Linguistics 6. 371–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. Gary (1975). On constraining global rules in phonology. Lg 51. 128–132.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2004). Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, James & Tsay, Jane (2002). Neutralization in Taiwanese tone sandhi. Ms, National Chung Cheng University. Available January 2011 at http://www.ccunix.ccu.edu.tw/%7Elngproc/MyersTsayTTSneut.pdf.Google Scholar
Narang, G. C. & Becker, Donald A. (1971). Aspiration and nasalization in the generative phonology of Hindi-Urdu. Lg 47. 646–667.Google Scholar
Odden, David (2008). Ordering. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 61–120.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2008). Esti este! Post on Phonoloblog, June 25. Available January 2011 at http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2008/06/25.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (1980). The generative power of rule ordering in formal grammars. Linguistics 18. 17–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1975). More on the application of phonological rules. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 113–150.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1970). On coreferential complement subject deletion. LI 1. 439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1972). The best theory. In Peters, Stanley (ed.) Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 131–170.Google Scholar
Press, Margaret L. (1979). Chemehuevi: a grammar and lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002a). 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 (2002b). Entailed ranking arguments. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-500 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas (2006). Minimizing UG: constraints upon constraints. WCCFL 25. 15–39.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1976). Sequential and simultaneous rule application in Spanish phonology. Lingua 38. 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyle, Charles (1972). On eliminating BM's. CLS 8. 516–532.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (to appear). The formal definition of the Onset constraint and implications for Korean syllable structure. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. Available January 2011 at http://www.unc.edu/~jlsmith/home/pdf/smith2010_onset_korean.pdf.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1995). On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Paper presented at the University of California, Los Angeles. Handout available as ROA-86 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1975). Woleaian reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 219–250.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (1995). Computational Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Available as ROA-90 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tihonova, Olga (2009). Acquisition and opacity. Master's thesis, University of Tromsø. Available as ROA-1043 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2007). Voicing and polarity in Luo. Ms, University of Leipzig. Available January 2011 at http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~jtrommer/papers/antiauto3.pdf.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert (1976). Noun bases in two Eskimo dialects: a study in comparative morphophonemics. In Hamp, Eric P. (ed.) Papers on Eskimo and Aleut linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 239–271.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. (1977). In support of extrinsic ordering. JL 13. 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vago, Robert M. & Battistella, Edwin (1982). Rule application in phonology. Ms, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S. (1949). Automatic alternations. Lg 25. 99–116.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Max W. (1979). Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. (1973). Reduplication and rule ordering. CLS 9. 679–687.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Counterfeeding from the past. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Available January 2011 at http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/sadphig/files/2009/01/counterfeedingfromthepast.pdf.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal Interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-996 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2010). On the existence of counterfeeding from the past. Paper presented at the 84th Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Baltimore. Handout available January 2011 at http://wolf.phonologist.org.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jie, Lai, Yuwen & Turnbull-Sailor, Craig (2006). Wug-testing the ‘tone circle’ in Taiwanese. WCCFL 25. 453–461.Google Scholar