Home
Resource
Morpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(347.83 kb)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Pater, Joe. Morpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3FX77CX

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleMorpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution
PublisherEquinox Publishing Ltd.
NamePater, Joe (Author)
Date Created2009
SubjectPhonology, Exceptions, Learnability, Lexically specific constraints, Cophonology Theory, Finnish language, Piro, Assamese language, Locality, Yine, Chontaquiro language
Extent33 p.
DescriptionThis paper argues that exceptions and other instances of morpheme-specific phonology are best analyzed in Optimality Theory (OT) in terms of lexically indexed markedness and faithfulness constraints. This approach is shown to capture locality restrictions, distinctions between exceptional and truly impossible patterns, distinctions between blocking and triggering, and distinctions between variation and exceptionality. It is contrasted with other OT analyses of exceptions, in particular those that disallow lexically indexed markedness constraints and those that invoke lexically specified rankings (that is, cophonologies). The data discussed are from Assamese, Finnish and Yine (formerly Piro). A learnability account of the genesis of lexically indexed constraints is also provided, in which indexation is used to resolve inconsistency detected by Tesar and Smolensky's (1998, 2000) Recursive Constraint Demotion algorithm.
NoteThis is the authors' final version of a book chapter that was published in Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation.
NotePater, J.(2009). Morpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution. In S.G. Parker (Ed.), Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. London: Equinox.
NotePeer reviewed
GenreBook Chapter
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3FX77CX
LanguageEnglish
CollectionRutgers Optimality Archive
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsCopyright for scholarly resources published in RUcore is retained by the copyright holder. By virtue of its appearance in this open access medium, you are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Other uses, such as reproduction or republication, may require the permission of the copyright holder.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024