Markedness, Segment Realization, and Locality in Spreading
نویسندگان
چکیده
An important goal of phonological theory has been the elucidation of "action at a distance." This term refers to processes, such as assimilations or dissimilations, in which the trigger segment and affected segment are not string-adjacent; there are segments that intervene, yet seem not to participate in the process. Transparency of this sort raises questions. How and why does it occur? What determines which segments, if any, will be transparent for a given process? The search for answers to such questions has been one of the important forces driving the elaboration of metrical and autosegmental representations. Consider the case of long-distance feature spreading, or harmony. It is well known that segments within a spreading domain may appear to be non-participants, transparent to the harmony process. Various strategies have been proposed to account for such cases of transparency. Within non-linear phonological frameworks, a property many approaches have in common is the preservation of locality by relativizing it to what might very generally be called a legitimate target: some notion "anchor," "projection," or "feature-bearing unit." Locality is obeyed so long as spreading does not skip such a legitimate target. Notable examples of this line of thinking include Goldsmith (1976[79]) and Clements (1980) on the notion "feature-bearing unit," Halle and Vergnaud (1978) on "projections" of features, Kiparsky (1981) on the notion "harmonic vowel," and Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1987; 1994) and Anderson and Ewen (1987) on the relativization of adjacency to prosodically or geometrically defined anchors. The basic idea is depicted in (1), where a feature F is linked to the elements T1 and T2, legitimate targets in some respect. Locality is not violated by the skipping of intervening , since lacks whatever property it is that grants legitimacy (e.g. it is not F-bearing, has the wrong prosodic status, or lacks a certain feature geometric node, see the references cited above). Equivalently, the elements T1 and T2 are adjacent for the purposes of F-spreading.
منابع مشابه
Markedness, Segment Realisation, and Locality in Spreading
One of the fundamental observations of linguistic theory is that linguistic elements do not interact over arbitrarily great distances. Instead, relations obtain locally. This conviction would seem trivial if all phonological interaction were obviously confined to adjacent segments, or all syntactic relations to adjacent words. In reality, the assumption of locality requires work for those assum...
متن کاملReinterpreting Transparency in Nasal Harmony*
1 . Introduction In this paper I examine crosslinguistic variation in nasal harmony. Three kinds of segment behavior are observed: target segments become nasalized in nasal harmony (/na/ → [na)]), blocking or opaque segments remain oral and block nasal spreading (/nata/ → [na) ta]), and transparent segments remain oral and do not block nasal spreading (/nata/ → [na) ta) ]). The membership of th...
متن کاملOn Feature Spreading and the Representation of Place of Articulation
Since Clements (1985) introduced feature geometry, four major innovations have been proposed: Unified Feature Theory, Vowel-Place Theory, Strict Locality, and Partial Spreading. We set out the problems that each innovation encounters and propose a new model of feature geometry and feature spreading that is not subject to these problems. Of the four innovations, the new model—Revised Articulator...
متن کاملMorphological Markedness in an OT-Grammar: zeros and syncretism*
This paper explores the role of morphological markedness constraints in an OT framework with interleaving of phonological and morphological constraints. Morphological markedness constraints are constraints against the realization of marked combinations of features. For example, a constraint like *[+GROUP +RESTRICTED] (*DUAL) would penalize any output with a single morpheme realizing features [+...
متن کاملInteraction of morphological and phonological markedness in Russian genitive plural allomorphy
This paper incorporates morphological markedness constraints into a framework in which morphology and phonology directly interact, modeled with interleaving of morphological and phonological constraints in serial OT (Wolf 2008, 2009). Morphological markedness constraints are constraints against realization (or spell-out) of morphologically marked feature sets. The empirical data motivating this...
متن کامل