Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

P. COUTSOUGERA
ruled out as it violates CODA–COND. de(e is the winner scoring 3 nonviolations
of the highest ranked constraints (against de(, which has 2 but
which is discarded before de(e2, which has 0 non-violations). In the
tableau below, 0 stands for violation and 1 for non-violation:
Tableau 5: Opacity in Tiberian Hebrew - Demonstration of steps / stages
/de2C/
CODA–
COND
*Cmplx ❀MAX–V ✮MAX–C DEP–V
☞de2e 1 1 1 0 0
de2 1 1 0 0 1
❀de2eC 0 1 1 1 0
de2C 0 0 0 1 1
7.3 Parallelism and inter-candidate correspondence
McCarthy (1998) provides a solution to the problem of parallelism
by extending the notion of correspondence, so that it will hold in the set
of candidates, among which the ❀candidate is included. Each candidate is
now in an inter-candidate correspondence relation to itself and to all
other candidates, as shown in the figure below. By doing so, parallelism
is secured and the theory is temporarily rescued.
Fig. 1 Inter-candidate Correspondence
[McCarthy 1998:18]
Correspondence, as developed by McCarthy & Prince (1995), is a
relation between base – output (in the same way identity is treated by
faithfulness between I-O). The original notion of Correspondence is
defined by McCarthy & Prince (1995) as follows:
40