Search results
modification of the input, contravening faithfulness. Input-output faithfulness and base-reduplicant identity, we argue, are controlled by exactly the same set of formal considerations, played out over different pairs of compared structures. In aid of this conception, we revise the implementation of faithfulness presented in Prince & Smolensky ...
output form to its corresponding input (loosely speaking, underlying) form and require the two to be identical along some phonologically relevant dimension; for example, there are different faithfulness constraints that penalize epenthesis, deletion, and featural change. Different rankings among markedness and faithfulness constraints lead
- Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology*
- Completeness of mapping:
- 3.1 Reduplication/Phonology Interaction in Correspondence Theory
- Over
- y ̃ãt–ne ̃y ̃ãt
- wã
- Spread Nasal
- 4.4 Summary
- Nas
- Oral
John J. McCarthy University of Massachusetts, Amherst jmccarthy@linguist.umass.edu
In the domain of base-reduplicant identity, completeness is total reduplication and incompleteness is partial reduplication, normally satisfying some templatic requirement on the canonical shape of the reduplicant. •In the domain of input-output faithfulness, incompleteness is phonological deletion.
The full theory of reduplication involves correspondence between underlying stem and surface base, between surface base and surface reduplicant, and between underlying stem and surface reduplicant. The following diagram portrays this system of relations: (6) Full Model Input: /Af RED + Stem/
b. * yat-ne ̃yat c. * yat–ne ̃y ̃ãt *Phonological constraint against NV Oral
‘intentions’ /moa/ w ̃ ã–mõw ̃ã ‘faces’ No independent word could have the form y ̃ãt, as is predicted by the constraint hierarchy just developed. The independent appearance of y ̃ãt, w ̃ ã and the like can only be an effect of a reduplication-specific constraint, demanding featural identity between base and copy. Several possibilities exist for ...
– ‘fragrant/(intensified)’ a ãn ã ãn–ã ãn ‘reverie/ambition’ a en ã en–ã en ‘wind/unconfirmed news’ Remarkably, nasality whose source is a nasal consonant in the first conjunct re-appears in that very morpheme, outside the context where Malay phonology admits nasals. Thus, nasality spreads from the of /wa i/ rightward to yield wa . But in wã –wã ,...
wa – Copy wã –wã Outcome wã –wã Matched nasality The Persistent Serial Theory may seem like no more than an extension of familiar (if controversial) proposals, but there is a significant twist when free iteration of rules is set loose in the reduplicative realm. A persistent rule applies whenever its structural description is met: but what is the ...
We have argued in this section for an account of reduplicative overapplication, set within parallelist Optimality Theory under the Correspondence Theory of faithfulness and identity. Phonological alternations or distributional restrictions require a ranking in which some phonological constraint dominates I-O Faithfulness; this defines the backgroun...
identity-preserving nasal vocoids will be forced in the reduplicant, as in y ̃ãt–ne ̃y ̃ãt. This is B-to-R overapplication descriptively, and here again the relevant B-R Identity constraint plays a role much like that of *NV in forcing violations
of *V Nas . (66) Overapplication in R when B is Target B-R Identity >> {*M} This kind of overapplication ensures that the reduplicant accurately imitates the base, even when the phonological circumstances in B are different from those in R. Thus, in the Madurese/Malay case, given underlying input /y ̃ãt/, the grammar will produce denasalized output...
a wide range of constraints, including markedness, input–output faithfulness and base–reduplicant faithfulness. However, output–output correspondence and ‘intercandidate’ sympathy are revealed to be problematic: it is unclear that any reasonable class of structures can reconstruct their proponents’ intentions. But
this chapter) (to add to the confusion called ‘output-output there are constraints constraints’, which are actually faithfulness constraints (see §3.3)). As originally used, ‘faithfulness constraints’ are those that return violation marks based on comparison of the output representation with the input (P&S§1.2; though
Apr 1, 2014 · Faithfulness constraints (Kager, 1999: 10) can be regarded as a prime residue of generative grammar, because they crucially involve a comparison between representations at an underlying (input) level and at an output level: if there is a difference (e.g. by deletion, insertion, or other changes), then input–output (IO) faithfulness is violated. As a theory that explicitly focuses on the ...
People also ask
What are faithfulness constraints?
Which faithfulness constraint is violated when input place specifications are altered?
Why does M-Fort(STR) outrank the faithfulness constraint?
Why do strong positions have a faith constraint?
from input to output) requires that each segment in the input have a correspondent in the output. In other words, deletion is disallowed by this constraint since deletion would result in a segment in the input that corresponds to no segment in the output. MAX-IO replaces the PARSE of the Parse/Fill model of faithfulness in Prince & Smolensky ...
