Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:38:30.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Idempotency in Optimality Theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

GIORGIO MAGRI
GIORGIO MAGRI*
Affiliation:
SFL (CNRS, University of Paris 8, UPL)
*
Author’s address: SFL UMR 7023 CNRS, University of Paris 8, UPL 59/61 rue Pouchet, 75017 Paris, France[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An idempotent phonological grammar maps phonotactically licit forms faithfully to themselves. This paper establishes tight sufficient conditions for idempotency in (classical) Optimality Theory. Building on Tesar (2013), these conditions are derived in two steps. First, idempotency is shown to follow from a general formal condition on the faithfulness constraints. Second, this condition is shown to hold for a variety of faithfulness constraints which naturally arise within McCarthy & Prince’s (1995) Correspondence Theory of faithfulness. This formal analysis provides an exhaustive toolkit for modeling chain shifts, which have proven recalcitrant to a constraint-based treatment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2018 , pp. 139 - 187
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of this paper have been presented at WCCFL 33 at Simon Fraser University in March 2015 (see also Magri 2016), at the Workshop on Computational Phonology and Morphology at Chicago University in July 2015, and at OCP 12 in Budapest in January 2016. The research reported in this paper has been supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship (Grant agreement number: PIEF-GA-2011-301938).

References

Alderete, J. 2001. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics), New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alderete, J. 2008. Using learnability as a filter on factorial typology: A new approach to Anderson and Browne’s generalization. Lingua 118, 1177–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E. 1999. Positional faithfulness: An Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics), New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Benua, L. 2000. Phonological relations between words. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2007. Morphological structure and phonological domains in Spanish denominal derivation. In Martínez-Gil, F. & Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-theoretic studies in Spanish phonology, 278–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaho, S., Bye, P. & Krämer, M.. 2007. Freedom of analysis? Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P.1998. Functional phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Buccola, B. 2013. On the expressivity of Optimality Theory versus ordered rewrite rules. In Morrill, G. & Nederhof, M. (eds.), Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1998. Multiple correspondence. Lingua 104, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A. 2002. Noncontiguous metathesis and Adjacency . In Carpenter, A., Coetzee, A. & de Lacy, P. (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, vol. 2, 1–26. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Casali, R. F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73, 493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, R. F. 1998. Resolving hiatus (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics), New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cho, M.-H. & Lee, S.. 2000. Ordering problems in phonological acquisition. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 6, 137–157.Google Scholar
Cho, M.-H. & Lee, S.. 2003. The acquisition of fricatives: Chain shift cases of English and Korean. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 9, 485–498.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, M. & Hewitt, M.. 1997. Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of North Carolina and Brandeis University. [ROA-229]Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Barlow, J. A.. 1998. On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25, 61–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, D. A., Green, C. R., Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L.. 2011. On the anatomy of a chain shift. Journal of Linguistics 47.2, 1–25.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., O’Connor, K. M. & Gierut, J. A.. 2001. The puzzle–puddle–pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37, 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, L. J. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, L. J. 2000. Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication. Phonology 17, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. E. 1997. Phonology with ternary scales. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. E. 2004. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 73–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Circulated since 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M. A. 2001. Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. In Hirotani, M., Coetzee, A., Hall, N. & Kim, J.-Y. (eds.), The Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS) 30 (Vol. 1), 231–245. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hall, N. 2011. Vowel epenthesis. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1576–1596. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 2011. Deletion. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3, 1597–1621. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 2004. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: The early stages. In Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. 2009. Introductory phonology. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. & White, J.. 2015. Saltation and the P-map. Phonology 32.2, 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, J. 2005. Reconsidering linearity: Evidence from CV metathesis. In Alderete, J., Han, C.-h. & Kochetov, A. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 24), 200–208. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, J. 2011. Computational phonology: Part I: Foundations. Linguistic Compass 5.4, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I. 1989. Autosegmental and metrical spreading in the vowel harmony systems of Northwestern Spain. Journal of Linguistics 27, 773–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, E. 1998. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua 104, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, J. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7, 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesney, K.2005. Chain shifts in phonological acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary, Master Thesis.Google Scholar
Jesney, K. 2007. Child chain shifts as faithfulness to input prominence. 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition, 188–199. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. W.. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. W.. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, R.1995. Going the distance: Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of California. [ROA-66]Google Scholar
Kirchner, R. 1996. Synchronic chain-shifts in Optimality Theory. Journal of Linguistics 27.2, 341–350.Google Scholar
Kubozono, H., Ito, J. & Mester, A.. 2008. Consonant gemination in Japanese loanword phonology. Current issues in unity and diversity of languages. Collection of papers selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguists, 953–973. Republic of Korea: Dongam Publishing Co.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. S. 2000. Chain shift in second language phonological acquisition. Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 4, 175–199.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.. 1990a. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Annual conference of the cognitive science society 12, 884–891. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.. 1990b. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Annual conference of the cognitive science society 12, 388–395. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. 2001. Why place and voice are different: Constraint interactions and feature faithfulness in Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, L. (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, A. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112, 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, A. 2011. Chain shifts. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, B., Colin, Hume & Rice, K. (eds.), Companion to phonology, 1717–1735. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, A. 2012. The phonology of contrast. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Macken, M. 1980. The child’s lexical representation: The ‘puzzle–puddle–pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16.1, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magri, G.2015. Benign chain shifts and the learnability of phonotactics. Ms.Google Scholar
Magri, G. 2016. Idempotency and chain shifts. In Kim, K.-m. (ed.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 33). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Magri, G.To appear. Idempotency, output-drivenness and the faithfulness triangle inequality: Some consequences of McCarthy’s (2013) categoricity generalization. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J.1993. The parallel advantage: Containment, Consistency, and Alignment. Presented at ROW-1, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16, 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J.2002. Comparative markedness (long version). Ms., University of Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2003a. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2003b. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2004. Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2008. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25, 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, J., Urbanczyk, S. & Walsh Dickey, L. (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Moreton, E.2004a. A compendium of synchronic chain shifts. Ms., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
Moreton, E. 2004b. Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, J. J. (ed.), Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader, 141–163. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Mikkelsen, L. & Potts, C. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 21), 306–319. Cambridge, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. O.1995. Correspondence and identity constraints in two-level Optimality Theory. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pater, J. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In Kager, R., van der Hulst, H. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), The prosody–morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Reprinted in McCarthy, J. J. 2004. Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. 2007. The pursuit of theory. In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [(Tech. Rep. CU-CS-696-93). Boulder: Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado. (Tech. Rep. TR-2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, April 1993. ROA-537]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Tesar, B.. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, W. 1953. Principles of mathematical analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P.1995. On the internal structure of the constraint component of UG. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/87. Colloquium presented at the Univ. of California, Los Angeles, April 7, 1995. [ROA-86]Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G.. 2006. The harmonic mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Staroverov, P.2014. Splitting theory and consonants epenthesis. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Tesar, B. 2013. Output-driven phonology: Theory and learning. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velten, H. d. V. 1943. The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant language. Language 19, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R.1999. Esimbi vowel height shift: Implications for faith and markedness. Ms., University of Southern California. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/346. [ROA-336]1Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. W. 2005. Cluster reduction: Deletion or coalescence? Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J.2013. Bias in phonological learning: Evidence from saltation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. 2001. Consonant cluster neutralization and targeted constraints. Phonology 18, 147–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M. 2007. What constraint connectives should be permitted in OT? University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 36, 151–179.Google Scholar
Zuraw, K. 2007. The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from tagalog infixation. Language 83, 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, K.2013. *Map constraints. Ms., University of California. www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw/dnldpprs/star_map.pdf.Google Scholar