Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:41:57.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local optionality with partial orders*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2016

Aaron Kaplan
Aaron Kaplan*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
*
E-mail: a.kaplan@utah.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In local optionality, an optional process may apply at some loci in a form but not at others. Some theories of optionality, such as Partial Orders Theory, produce optionality by making multiple strict constraint rankings available, and have been claimed to be incompatible with local optionality: if the process-triggering constraint outranks faithfulness, the process applies exhaustively; under the opposite ranking, it applies nowhere. On this view, candidates in which the process applies at some loci but not others are harmonically bounded. This paper argues against that position by showing that for a variety of locally optional processes each locus can be independently manipulated if the theory makes use of constraints that target particular prosodic or morphosyntactic units – constraints that are motivated independently of their utility in local optionality. The result is that, contrary to the harmonic-bounding argument, Partial Orders Theory can provide plausible accounts of local optionality.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2016 , pp. 285 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to the following people for their insightful comments and questions throughout the development of this paper: Aniko Csirmaz, Rachel Hayes-Harb, Abby Kaplan, Jonah Katz, Wendell Kimper, Armin Mester, Ed Rubin and Jennifer Smith, as well as audiences at the University of Utah and the 2012 UNC Spring Colloquium.

References

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 & Yu Cho, Young-mee (1998). Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayles, Andrew, Kaplan, Aaron & Kaplan, Abby (2016). Inter- and intra-speaker variation in French schwa. Glossa 1. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.54.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1999). Positional faithfulness. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan (2012). Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2006). Constraints on phonological interactions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.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
Borowsky, Toni (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. (1987). The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook 4. 109–149.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2003). Just how many languages are there? NELS 33. 103–114.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.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. NLLT 7. 167–216.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2000). Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène & Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart (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
Crosswhite, Katherine M. (2001). Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Jong, Kenneth J. (2011). Flapping in American English . In van Oostendorp et al. (2011). 2711–2729.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002a). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002b). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19. 1–32.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21. 145–199.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’épenthèse de schwa en français moderne. In Rohrer, Christian (ed.) Actes du colloque franco-allemand de linguistique théorique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 141–153.Google Scholar
Dell, François (1995). Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 95. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jacques, Slater, Catherine & Wise, Hilary (1987). Observations on schwa in Southern French. Linguistics 25. 983–1004.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
Fujimura, Osamu & Lovins, Julie B. (1978). Syllables as concatenative phonetic units. In Bell, Alan & Hooper, Joan Bybee (eds.) Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North Holland. 107–120.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall, Lyche, Chantal & Meisenburg, Trudel (eds.) (2012). Phonological variation in French: illustrations from three continents. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenador, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Selkirk, Elisabeth (1987). Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology Yearbook 4. 151–183.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2013). OTSoft 2.3.3. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin (1973). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2007). Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 97–111.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009a). The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.) Phonological domains: universals and deviations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 135–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009b). The onset of the prosodic word. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 227–260.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2012). Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. 280–303.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard (2007). Maximum entropy models and Stochastic Optimality Theory. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, rules, and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI. 467–479.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette (2006). The winner takes it all – almost: cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics 44. 937–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2007). The locus of variation in weighted constraint grammars. Poster presented at the workshop ‘Variation, gradience and frequency in phonology’ , Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Aaron (2011). Variation through markedness suppression. Phonology 28. 331–370.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Aaron (2015). Maximal prominence and a theory of possible licensors. NLLT 33. 1235–1270.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah (2016). Lenition, perception and neutralisation. Phonology 33. 43–85.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell (2011). Locality and globality in phonological variation. NLLT 29. 423–465.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka (2001). The phonology of morpheme realization. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1994). Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1982). Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Lg 58. 574–590.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Riggle, Jason (2004). Productivity and lexicalization in Pima compounds. BLS 30:2. 114–126.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
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Vaux, Bert (2008). Introduction: the division of labor between rules, representations, and constraints in phonological theory . In Vaux, & Nevins, (2008). 1–19.Google Scholar
Noske, Roland (1993). A theory of syllabification and segmental alternation, with studies on the phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) (2011). The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.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
Prince, Alan, Tesar, Bruce & Merchant, Nazarré (2013). OTWorkplace installer package. Software package. https://sites.google.com/site/otworkplace.Google Scholar
Reynolds, William T. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason (2006). Infixing reduplication in Pima and its theoretical consequences. NLLT 24. 857–891.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason & Wilson, Colin (2005). Local optionality. NELS 35. 539–550.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 (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982). The syllable. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 337–383.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherer, Tim D. (1994). Prosodic phonotactics. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2005). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2011). Category-specific effects . In van Oostendorp et al. (2011). 2439–2463.Google Scholar
Spaelti, Philip (1997). Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Staubs, Robert, Becker, Michael, Potts, Christopher, Pratt, Patrick, McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (2010). OT-Help 2.0. Software package. http://web.linguist.umass.edu/~OTHelp/.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3. 25–145.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1987). The sounds of French: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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 & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) (2008). Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2011). Vowel patterns in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1997). Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14. 263–286.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1998a). Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1998b). Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms, MIT. Available as ROA-282 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar