Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T14:10:17.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation through markedness suppression*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2011

Aaron Kaplan
Aaron Kaplan
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Certain optional phonological processes may apply to any number of the potential targets in a form, yielding outputs in which the process applies to a proper subset of the available loci. Such patterns are incompatible with OT-based frameworks that produce variation by providing multiple constraint rankings. While one ranking may favour exhaustive application and another no application, no ranking favours application at just some loci. The framework presented here, Markedness Suppression, solves this problem: eval may ignore any violation mark assigned by designated markedness constraints, creating variation by manipulating candidates' violation profiles. By ignoring different violation marks on different evaluations, the full range of attested forms is produced, including ones with intermediate levels of process application. Markedness Suppression achieves better empirical coverage than competing frameworks, in terms of both producing the correct range of variants and modelling their output frequencies.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , December 2011 , pp. 331 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

References

Anderson, Stephen R. (1982). The analysis of French shwa: or, how to get something for nothing. Lg 58. 534–573.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2006). Variation and opacity. NLLT 24. 893–944.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2007). Variation and optionality. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 519–536.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Cho, Young-mee Yu (1998). Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric & Keer, Edward (2001). Optionality and ineffability. In Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane & Vikner, Sten (eds.) Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 97–112.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1999). Positional faithfulness: an Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283–333.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2004). What it means to be a loser: non-optimal candidates in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2006). Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23. 337–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2000). Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2007). Rhythmic constraints on the distribution of schwa in French. In Camacho, José, Flores-Ferrán, Nydia, Sánchez, Liliana, Déprez, Viviana & Cabrera, María José (eds.) Romance linguistics 2006: selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 81–95.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène & Geoffrey, Stewart Morrison (2007). The nature of the schwa/zero alternation in French clitics: experimental and non-experimental evidence. Journal of French Language Studies 17. 159–186.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dell, François (1973). Les règles et les sons: introduction à la phonologie générative. Paris: Hermann. Translated 1980 by Catherine Cullen as Generative phonology and French phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dell, François (1977). Paramètres syntaxiques et phonologiques qui favorisent l'èpenthèse de schwa en français moderne. In Rohrer, Christian (ed.) Actes du colloque franco-allemand de linguistique théorique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jacques (2009). Essai de panorama phonologique: les accents du midi. In Baronian, Luc & Martineau, France (eds.) Le français d'un continent à l'autre: mélanges offerts à Yves-Charles Morin. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval. 123–170.Google Scholar
Eibergen, Joëlle van (1991). Évaluation quantative de l'alternance phonétique du /ə/: importance de l'entourage consonantique. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 3. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. 150–152.Google Scholar
Eibergen, Joëlle van (1992). Effacements et maintiens du /e/ bifide. Bulletin de la Communication Parlée 2. 115–124.Google Scholar
Eibergen, Joëlle van & Belrhali, Rabia (1994). Étude statistique du /ə/. In Lyche, Chantal (ed.) French generative phonology: retrospective and perspectives. Salford: Association for French Language Studies. 277–287.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile, Gendrot, Cedric & Bürki, Audrey (2007). On the acoustic characteristics of French schwa. In Trouvain, Jürgen & Barry (, William J.eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. 941–944.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1994). An OT account of variability in Walmatjari stress. Ms, University of Arizona. Available as ROA-20 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hansen, Anita Berit (1994). Étude du E caduc: stabilisation en cours et variations lexicales. Journal of French Language Studies 4. 25–54.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2003). OTSoft 2.31. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Hoskins, Steven R. (1994). Secondary stress and stress clash resolution in French: an empirical investigation. In Mazzola, Michael L. (ed.) Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the 23rd linguistic symposium on Romance languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 35–47.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin (1973). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan (1982a). Harmony processes in Vata. In Kaye, Jonathan, Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique (eds.) Projet sur les langues Kru: premier rapport. Montreal: UQAM. 60–151.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D. (1982b). Harmony processes in Vata. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 385–452.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Robert (2008). Bugotu and Cheke Holo reduplication: in defence of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Phonology 25. 61–82.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell (2011). Locality and globality in phonological variation. NLLT 29. 423–465.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1993). Variable rules. Handout of paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1997). Contrastiveness and faithfulness. Phonology 14. 83–111.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Leben, William (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lee, Minkyung (2001). Optionality and variation in Optimality Theory: focus on Korean phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Léon, Pierre R. (1987). E caduc: facteurs distributionnels et prosodiques dans deux types de discours. In Gamkrelidze, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 3. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR. 109–112.Google Scholar
Liphola, Marcelino M. (2001). Aspects of phonology and morphology of Shimakonde. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1996). Restrictions on direction of voicing assimilation: an OT account. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 88–102.Google Scholar
Lucci, Vincent (1983). Étude phonétique du français contemporain à travers la variation situationnelle. Grenoble: Université des Langues et Lettres de Grenoble.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The serial interaction of stress and syncope. NLLT 26. 499–546.Google Scholar
Malécot, André (1976). The effect of linguistic and paralinguistic variables on the elision of the French mute-e. Phonetica 33. 93–112.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi & Reynolds, Bill (1997). Optimality Theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9. 37–55.Google Scholar
Neu, Helene (1980). Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: a statistical analysis. In Labov, William (ed.) Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 37–54.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Bert, Vaux (2008). Introduction: the division of labor between rules, representations, and constraints in phonological theory. In Vaux, & Nevins, (2008). 1–19.Google Scholar
Noske, Roland (1996). Is French optimal? A question concerning phonological process order. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.) Current trends in phonology: models and methods. Salford: ESRI. 485–507.Google Scholar
Odden, David (2008). Ordering. In Vaux, & Nevins, (2008). 61–120.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (1999). Austronesian nasal substitution and other N effects. In Kager, René, Hulst, Harry van der & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 310–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, David & Connine, Cynthia M. (2001). Variant frequency in flap production: a corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58. 254–275.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech. 2nd release. Columbus: Ohio State University. www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.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
Pruitt, Kathryn (2010). Serialism and locality in constraint-based metrical parsing. Phonology 27. 481–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea (1999). Morphological optionality in Tagalog aspectual reduplication. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34. 107–136.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Bill (1994). Variation and phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason & Wilson, Colin (2005). Local optionality. NELS 35. 539–550.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine O. & Orvokki, Heinämäki (1999). Variation in Finnish vowel harmony: an OT account. NLLT 17. 303–337.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri & Prince, Alan (1999). Optima. Ms, University College London & Rutgers University. Available as ROA-363 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.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
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1978). The French foot: on the status of ‘mute’ e. Studies in French Linguistics 1:2. 141–150.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984a). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oerhle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984b). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1994). Licensing by cue. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1987). The sounds of French: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1999). Optional schwa deletion: on syllable economy in French. In Authier, J.-Marc, Bullock, Barbara E. & Reed, Lisa A. (eds.) Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics: selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 271–288.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (2002). Iterativity and optionality. Paper presented at the 33rd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, MIT.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (2008). Why the phonological component must be serial and rule-based. In Vaux, & Nevins, (2008). 20–60.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert & Andrew, Nevins (eds.) (2008). Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verluyten, S. Paul (1984). Phonetic reality of linguistic structures: the case of (secondary) stress in French. In van den Broecke, M. P. R & Cohen, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dordrecht: Foris. 522–526.Google Scholar
Verluyten, S. Paul (1988). Introduction. In Verluyten, S. Paul (ed.) La phonologie du schwa français. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1–13.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jie (2004). The role of contrast-specific and language-specific phonetics in contour tone distribution. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 157–190.Google Scholar