Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-lb775 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-19T03:39:34.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sympathy and phonological opacity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2002

John J. McCarthy
John J. McCarthy
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central idea in rule-based phonology is the serial derivation (Chomsky & Halle 1968). In a serial derivation, an underlying form passes through a number of intermediate representations on its way to the surface:

[Scheme here]

Implementational details can differ: the order of rules might be stipulated or it might be derived from universal principles; the steps might be called ‘rules’, ‘cycles’ or ‘levels’; the steps might involve applying rules or enforcing constraints. But, details aside, the defining characteristic of a serial derivation, in the sense I will employ here, is the pre-eminence of the chronological metaphor: the underlying form is transformed into a succession of distinct, accessible intermediate representations on its way to the surface. I will call any theory with this property ‘serialism’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 331 - 399
Copyright
© 1999 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant SBR-9420424. Versions of it were presented at MIT (April 1997), The Hopkins Optimality Workshop/Maryland Mayfest ’97 (May 1997), the LSA Linguistic Institute (July 1997), the University of Amsterdam (September 1997), Ohio State University (October 1997) and UT Austin (November 1997). I acknowledge with particular gratitude the comments of Alan Prince; they helped to shape this work in significant ways. I have also received valuable feedback from (at UMass) John Alderete, Patrik Bye, Katy Carlson, Paul de Lacy, Diamandis Gafos, André Isaak, Caroline Jones, Young-Seok Kim, Greg Lamontagne, Ania Łubowicz, Elliott Moreton and Jen Smith; (at MIT) Jonathan Bobaljik, Morris Halle, James Harris, Michael Kenstowicz, David Pesetsky, Philippe Schlenker and Cheryl Zoll; (at HOT/MM ’97) Eric Baković, Jill Beckman, Laura Benua, Ellen Broselow, Luigi Burzio, Nick Clements, Stuart Davis, Jason Eisner, Edward Flemming, Sharon Inkelas, Junko Itô, Dan Karvonen, Robert Kirchner, Armin Mester, Joe Pater, Adam Sherman [Ussishkin] and Paul Smolensky; (at the Linguistic Institute) Toni Borowsky, Mark Harvey, Bruce Hayes, Marzena Rochoń, Jin-Young Tak and Draga Zec; (at the University of Amsterdam) Harry van der Hulst, Helga Humbert, Claartje Levelt, Sharon Peperkamp, Nancy Ritter, Norval Smith and Laura Walsh Dickey; (at OSU) Mary Beckman, Brian Joseph, Beth Hume, David Odden and Sam Rosenthall; (at UT) Bob Harms and Scott Myers; and Trisha Causley, Elan Dresher, Paul Kiparsky, Chuck Kisseberth and Colin Wilson. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ellen Kaisse, two anonymous reviewers and especially the anonymous associate editor, whose detailed, thoughtful and supportive comments did much to improve this article.