Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:34:56.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Summing constraints in and across properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2020

Wm. G. Bennett Open the ORCID record for Wm. G. Bennett [Opens in a new window]  and
Natalie DelBusso
Wm. G. Bennett*
Affiliation:
Rhodes University
Natalie DelBusso*
Affiliation:
Wayne State College
*
E-mail: w.bennett@ru.ac.za, n.delbusso@rutgers.edu.
E-mail: w.bennett@ru.ac.za, n.delbusso@rutgers.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Work in Optimality Theory on the constraint set, Con, has often raised the question of whether certain types of constraints have multiple specific versions or are single general constraints that effectively sum the violations of specific variants. Comparing and evaluating analyses that differ in this way requires knowing the effect of this kind of summing on the full typology, which itself depends on the relationship of summands in the full system. Such relationships can be difficult to ascertain from inspecting violation profiles alone. This paper uses Property Theory to analyse the systematic effects of summing constraints in two distinct kinds of relationships: (i) across distinct properties, and (ii) within a constraint class in a single property. The results show how these two types collapse the typology in different, yet predictable, ways. Property Analysis provides a key to identifying constraint relationships and so to delineating the effect of summing.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 367 - 381
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

*

The authors would like to thank Alan Prince and participants of the 4th meeting of the Society for Typological Analysis for discussion of the ideas in this paper.

References

Alber, Birgit, DelBusso, Natalie & Prince, Alan (2016). From intensional properties to universal support. Lg 92. e88–e116.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Prince, Alan (in preparation). Typologies. Ms, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wm. G. (2015). The phonology of consonants: harmony, dissimilation, and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Wm. G. & DelBusso, Natalie (2018). The typological effects of ABC constraint definitions. Phonology 35. 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Wm. G. & DelBusso, Natalie (2020). Summing within and across properties. Paper presented at the SOTA IV workshop, Eckerd College, St Petersburg, Fl.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan J. & Hewitt, Mark (1997). Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory. Ms, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & Brandeis University. Available as ROA-229 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
DelBusso, Natalie (2018). Typological structure and properties of Property Theory. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
DelBusso, Natalie & Bennett, Wm. G. (2019). ABP and ABC: agreement with/out correspondence. Phonological Data and Analysis 1.3. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v1art3.15.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian & Coon, Jessica (2009). Distinguishing total and partial identity: evidence from Chol. NLLT 27. 545–582.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2010). Consonant harmony: long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2014). (Dis)agreement by (non)correspondence: inspecting the foundations. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC Conference Archive. Slides available (July 2020) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2014/ABCC/Hansson.pdf.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Mark & Crowhurst, Megan (1996). Conjunctive constraints and templates in Optimality Theory. NELS 26. 101–116.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Mester, Armin & Padgett, Jaye (1995). Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. LI 26. 571–613.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010). Agreement by correspondence without Corr constraints. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-1089 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.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
McManus, Hope (2016). Stress parallels in modern OT. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Merchant, Nazarré & Prince, Alan (to appear). The mother of all tableaux. London: Equinox. Available as ROA-1285 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002). Entailed ranking arguments. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-500 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2015). One tableau suffices. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-1250 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2017). Representing OT grammars. Available as ROA-1309 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.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
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri & Prince, Alan (2005). Fundamental properties of harmonic bounding. Ms, University College London & Rutgers University. Available as ROA-785 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar