Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 25
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Shih, Stephanie S and Inkelas, Sharon 2019. Autosegmental Aims in Surface-Optimizing Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 50, Issue. 1, p. 137.

    Stanton, Juliet and Zukoff, Sam 2018. Prosodic identity in copy epenthesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 36, Issue. 2, p. 637.

    Byun, Koonhyuk Hong, Sung-Hoon and Ahn, Hyug 2018. A quantitative analysis of the phonemic status of the Russian vowel y. Russian Linguistics, Vol. 42, Issue. 3, p. 375.

    Bennett, Ryan Ní Chiosáin, Máire Padgett, Jaye and McGuire, Grant 2018. An ultrasound study of Connemara Irish palatalization and velarization. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, Vol. 48, Issue. 3, p. 261.

    Finley, Sara 2017. Locality and harmony: Perspectives from artificial grammar learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. e12233.

    Ryan, Kevin 2017. Attenuated Spreading in Sanskrit Retroflex Harmony. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 48, Issue. 2, p. 299.

    Blumenfeld, Lev and Toivonen, Ida 2016. A featural paradox in Votic harmony. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, p. 1167.

    Ridouane, Rachid 2016. Leading issues in Tashlhiyt phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 10, Issue. 11, p. 644.

    Pertsova, Katya 2015. Interaction of morphological and phonological markedness in Russian genitive plural allomorphy. Morphology, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 229.

    Walker, Rachel 2014. Nonlocal Trigger-Target Relations. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 45, Issue. 3, p. 501.

    Heinz, Jeffrey and Idsardi, William 2013. What Complexity Differences Reveal About Domains in Language*. Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, Issue. 1, p. 111.

    Kimper, Wendell 2012. Harmony is Myopic: Reply to Walker 2010. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 301.

    Walker, Rachel 2012. Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 6, Issue. 9, p. 575.

    Ordin, Mikhail 2011. Palatalization and Intrinsic Prosodic Vowel Features in Russian. Language and Speech, Vol. 54, Issue. 4, p. 547.

    Uffmann, Christian 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Rose, Sharon 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Gafos, Adamantios I. and Dye, Amanda 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Hall, Daniel Currie 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Padgett, Jaye 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Kabak, Bariş 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

  • Print publication year: 2001
  • Online publication date: July 2014

4 - Markedness, Segment Realization, and Locality in Spreading



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 nonparticipants, transparent to the harmony process. Various strategies have been proposed to account for such cases of transparency. Within nonlinear phonological frameworks, a property that 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 of “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) 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.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory
  • Online ISBN: 9780511570582
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *