Advertisement

Derived Environment Blocking Effects in Optimality Theory

  • T. A. Hall
Article

Abstract

The present study examines a particular kind of rule blockage – referred to below as ‘Derived Environment Blocking’ – which has not been recognized to date in the literature. Derived Environment Blocking (DEB) occurs if a phonological process is prevented from deriving a sequence of sounds [XY], but underlying (i.e. nonderived) /XY/ sequences are permitted to surface as [XY]. It will be argued below that Derived Environment Blocking effects can be captured in Optimality Theory in terms of a general ranking involving Faithfulness and Markedness constraints and that individual languages invoke a specific instantiation of this ranking. DEB will be compared to Comparative Markedness (McCarthy 2003) and it will be shown that the former approach is preferable to the later.

Keywords

General Ranking Contour Segment Markedness Constraint Faithfulness Constraint Front Vowel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alber Birgit. (2001). ‘Regional Variation and Edges: Glottal Stop Epenthesis and Dissimilation in Standard and Southern Varieties of German’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. 20: 3–41Google Scholar
  2. Booij Geert. (1995). The Phonology of Dutch. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Burzio Luigi. (2000). ‘Cycles, Non-derived Environment Blocking and Correspondence’. In: Dekkers, J. (eds) Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition., pp. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Ćavar Małgorzata. 2003. Palatalization in Polish. An Interaction of Articulatory and Perceptual Factors. dissertation, Universität PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Charette Monique. (2003). ‘Empty and Pseudo-empty Categories’. In: Ploch, S. (eds) Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye., pp 465–479. Mouton, Berlin Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky Noam and Morris Halle. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements G.N. (1999). ‘Affricates as Noncontoured Stops’. In: Fujimura, O. (eds) Item Order in Language and Speech., pp. Charles University Press, PragueGoogle Scholar
  8. Dell François. (1972). ‘Une règle d’effacement de i en français’. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes. 1: 63–88Google Scholar
  9. Dell F. (1976). ‘Schwa précédé d’un groupe obstruante-liquide’. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes. 4: 75–111Google Scholar
  10. Drosdowski, Günther. et al. 1990. Duden. Das Aussprachewörterbuch. Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache, Dudenverlag, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  11. Flemming Edward. (1995). Auditory Representations in Phonology. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gussenhoven Carlos and Haike Jacobs. (1998). Understanding Phonology. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall T.A. (1992). Syllable Structure and Syllable Related Processes in German. Niemeyer, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall T.A. (1992). ‘Syllable Final Clusters and Schwa Epenthesis in German’. In: Eisenberg, P., Ramers, K.H. and Vater, H. (eds) Silbenphonologie des Deutschen., pp 208–245. Narr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall T.A. (2004). ‘Assibilation in Modern German’. Lingua. 114: 1035–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, T.A. 2005. ‘German Glide Formation as the Interaction of Markedness and Faithfulness’, to appear in the proceedings of CLS 41.Google Scholar
  17. Hall T.A., Silke Hamann and Marzena Zygis. (2006). ‘The Phonetic Motivation for Phonological Stop Assibilation’. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 36(1): 59–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamann Silke. (2003). ‘German Glide Formation Functionally Viewed’. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 32: 137–154Google Scholar
  19. Hannahs S.J. (1995). ‘The Phonological Word in French’. Linguistics. 33: 1125–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey Mark and Brett Baker. (2005). ‘Vowel Harmony, Directionality and Morpheme Structure Constraints in Walpiri’. Lingua. 115: 1457–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norval Smith. and Hulst Harry (1985). ‘Vowel Features and Umlaut in Djingili, Nyangumarda and Walpiri’. Phonology. 2: 277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inkelas Sharon. (2000). ‘Phonotactic Blocking through Structural Immunity’. In: Stiebels, B. and Wunderlich, D. (eds) Lexicon in Focus. Studia Grammatica, pp 7–40. Akademie Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakobson Roman, Gunnar Fant and Morris Halle. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and their Correlates. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawasaki, Haruko. 1982. An Acoustical Basis for Universal Constraints on Sound Sequences, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Kaye Jonathan. (1989). Phonology. A Cognitive View. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaye Jonathan and Jean Lowenstamm. (1984). ‘De la syllabicité’. In: Dell, F., Hirst, D. and Vergnaud, J.-R. (eds) Forme sonore du langage Structure des représentations en phonologie., pp 123–159. Hermann, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Kehrein Wolfgang. 2002.Phonological Representation and Phonetic Phrasing: Affricates and Laryngeals, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  28. Kim Hyunsoon. (2001). ‘A Phonetically Based Account Of Phonological Stop Assibilation’. Phonology. 18: 81–108Google Scholar
  29. Kimball Sara and E. (1999). Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiparsky Paul. (1973). ‘Phonological Representations’. In: Fujimura, O. (eds) Three Dimensions in Linguistic Theory., pp. TEC, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiparsky Paul. (1982). ‘Lexical Morphology and Phonology’. In: Yang, I.-S. (eds) Linguistics in the Morning Calm., pp 3–91. Hanshin, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiparsky Paul. (1985). ‘Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology’. Phonology Yearbook. 2: 83–138Google Scholar
  33. Kiparsky Paul. (1993). ‘Blocking in Non-derived Environments’. In: Hargus, S. and Kaisse, E. (eds) Phonetics and Phonology 4: Studies in Lexical Phonology., pp 277–313. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  34. Lessen W.U.S. (1982). Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie, Merkmale und Markiertheit. Niemeyer, Tübingen Google Scholar
  35. LaCharité, Darlene. 1993. The Internal Structure of Affricates, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  36. Łubowicz Ania. (2002). ‘Derived Environment Effects in Optimality Theory’. Lingua. 112: 243–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyche Chantal. (1979). ‘Glides in French: Questions for Natural Generative Phonology’. Lingua. 49: 315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lynch, John. 1978. A Grammar of Lenakel, The Australian National University, Canberra, Pacific Linguistics Series B-No. 55.Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy John. (1997). ‘Process-specific Constraints in Optimality Theory’. Linguistic Inquiry. 28: 231–251Google Scholar
  40. McCarthy John. (2003). ‘Comparative Markedness’. Theoretical Linguistics. 29: 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCarthy John and Alan Prince. (1994). ‘The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology’. NELS. 24: 333–379Google Scholar
  42. Moulton William. (1962). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Nash, David. (1980). Topics in Walpiri Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  44. Noske, Roland. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation, With Studies on the Phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  45. Posti Lauri. (1954). ‘From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic: Studies on the Development of the Consonant System’. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen. 31: 1–91Google Scholar
  46. Prince, Alan and Paul, Smolensky. 1993. ‘Optimality Theory, Rutgers University and University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  47. Rialland Annie. (1994). ‘The Phonology and Phonetics of Extrasyllabicity in French’. In: Keating, P.A. (eds) Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III., pp 136–159. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Rigsby Bruce and Noel Rude. (1996). ‘Sketch of Sahaptin, a Sahaptin Language’. In: Goddard, U. (eds) Handbook of North American Indians Languages., pp 666–692. Smithsonian Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenthall, Sam. 1994. Vowel/Glide Alternation in a Theory of Constraint Interaction, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  50. Rubach Jerzy. (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  51. Rubach Jerzy. (1994). ‘Affricates as Strident Stops in Polish’. Linguistic Inquiry. 25: 119–143Google Scholar
  52. Rubach Jerzy. (2003). ‘Polish Palatalization in Derivational Optimality Theory’. Lingua. 113: 197–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Russell Kevin. (1997). ‘Optimality Theory and Morphology’. In: Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, D.T. (eds) Optimality Theory, An Overview., pp 102–133. Blackwell, Oxford Google Scholar
  54. Schachter, Paul and Victoria, Fromkin. 1968. A Phonology of Akan: Akuapem, Asante and Fante, Working Papers in Phonetics 9. UCLA.Google Scholar
  55. Scheer, Tobias. 2000. ‘*Trwer – une illustration de *TRø? à propos de généralisation “un groupe Obstruente-Liquide (TR) ne souffre pas l’absence de la voyelle à sa droite”, Unpublished ms, University of Nice.Google Scholar
  56. Selkirk Elisabeth. O. (1982). ‘The Syllable’. In: Smith, N. (eds) The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part I., pp 337–382. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  57. Sommer Ferdinand. (1948). Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Winter, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  58. Steriade, Donca. 1993. ‘Positional Neutralization’, Ms.Google Scholar
  59. Tranel Bernard. (1987). The Sounds of French. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Trubetzkoy Nikolai. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  61. Vennemann Theo. (1972). ‘On the Theory of Syllabic Phonology’. Linguistische Berichte. 18: 1–18Google Scholar
  62. Wiese Richard. (1996). The Phonology of German. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright, Richard. 1996. Consonant Clusters and Cue Preservation in Tsou, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  64. Wurzel Wolfgang and Ullrich. (1970). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Akademieverlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  65. Yu Si-Taek. (1992). Unterspezifikation in der Phonologie des Deutschen. Niemeyer, TübingenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Germanic StudiesBallantine Hall 644 Indiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana47405-7103USA

Personalised recommendations