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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P. COUTSOUGERA operation McCarthy precisely avoids time implications: an operation implies time whereas a relation does not. 8. Cumulativity 8.1 Rejection of inter-candidate correspondence by McCarthy (1999) Nevertheless, the model of ST proposed by McCarthy (1998) is too powerful. The ❀constraint is given all the power it needs to exert ANY possible influence onto the candidates and thus, in a certain sense, ‘manipulate’ the result. McCarthy (1999) admits that the framework of inter-candidate correspondence is too rich as it brings with it the full expressive power of correspondence theory and thus permits unattested patterns of opacity to be described, such as the feeding Duke-of-York 13 ones 14 . “The theory’s excessive richness comes from inter-candidate faithfulness constraints such as ❀IDENT (high) 15 . These constraints allow ANY information about the sympathetic candidate to be transmitted to the actual output form. … I therefore reject the notion of inter-candidate faithfulness constraints and here propose a more restrictive alternative.” [McCarthy 1999:20]. The ❀constraint IDENT-O (pal) in tableau 3 is what transmits the critical property of palatality to the output. This is also precisely what the constraint ❀IDENT I-O (pal) failed to transmit to the output as it is crucially ranked below *rca. Ranking IDENT-O (pal) above *rca would fail, too, as this would give the wrong output *(erca for the transparent example (erka (see data in 2 and derivations in 4 above). 8.2 Introducing Cumulativity In an attempt to restrict the excessive descriptive power of the theory, McCarthy (1999) re-visits ST, rejects inter-candidate correspondence and proposes Cumulativity (also discussed in McCarthy 1998). He introduces an extra constraint, ❀SYM, in the ST tableau (see below). In simple words, Cumulativity is based on evaluating whether two candidates share a subset of the same unfaithful mappings. 13 Duke-of-York derivations have the form A! B ! A. 14 According to McCarthy (1999), feeding Duke-of-York derivations are not attested in any language. 15 ❀IDENT -O (pal) / (vel) in our examples of CG 42
OPACITY AND SYMPATHY THEORY Successful candidates must match/resemble the ❀candidate as to having violated at least the same faithfulness constraints as the ❀candidate (they must have accumulated at least the same unfaithful violations as the ❀candidate). “❀SYM 16 Given a sympathetic candidate ❀-Cand, to evaluate a candidate E-Cand, derived from the same input: • If U❀-Cand ⊆ U E-Cand then E-Cand’s performance on ❀SYM is proportional to the cardinality of the set U E-Cand - U❀-Cand. • If U❀-Cand and U E-Cand are non-comparable in their unfaithful mappings, then E-Cand’s performance on ❀SYM is worse than that of any candidate that is comparable.” [McCarthy 1999: 23] E-candidate is then cumulative with respect to the SYM candidate when the SYM candidate has a subset of E-candidate’s I-O Faithfulness violations. Below is an application of cumulativity to CG. The optimal candidate omorca resembles the ❀candidate in the following way: they both have the feature palatal in place of the archi-phoneme I in the input, which is precisely what OT would get wrong, giving *omorka as the winner. What happens when the sympathetic candidate does not violate any faithfulness constraints? 16 U Cand stands for the set of unfaithful mappings relating some input to the output candidate Cand . 43
Page 1 and 2: Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 3: Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 6 and 7: K ALJENAIE testing ground. To what
Page 8 and 9: K ALJENAIE causative form is basica
Page 10 and 11: K ALJENAIE person diagram, the two
Page 12 and 13: K ALJENAIE 3.2 Data Analysis The sa
Page 14 and 15: K ALJENAIE Table 4 Osama’s longit
Page 16 and 17: K ALJENAIE The asterisk indicates t
Page 18 and 19: K ALJENAIE which is the transitive
Page 20 and 21: K ALJENAIE confirming Hyams (1986)
Page 22 and 23: K ALJENAIE Table 12 Sara’s realiz
Page 24 and 25: K ALJENAIE Table 15 Number of Infle
Page 26 and 27: K ALJENAIE masculine forms are cons
Page 28 and 29: K ALJENAIE Motar, A. (1969). Khasai
Page 30 and 31: P. COUTSOUGERA Plural Plural Singul
Page 32 and 33: P. COUTSOUGERA e.g. [peδja'] *[pe
Page 34 and 35: P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 1: Opacity i
Page 36 and 37: P. COUTSOUGERA As can be seen, in r
Page 38 and 39: P. COUTSOUGERA 6.1 Selection of the
Page 40 and 41: P. COUTSOUGERA /alevr-I-a/ Tableau
Page 42 and 43: P. COUTSOUGERA different areas of t
Page 44 and 45: P. COUTSOUGERA ruled out as it viol
Page 48 and 49: P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 6: Applicati
Page 50 and 51: P. COUTSOUGERA References Anderson,
Page 52 and 53: R. INGHAM cognitive deficits. They
Page 54 and 55: R. INGHAM 2. Subjects and hypothese
Page 56 and 57: R. INGHAM good as their CA matches
Page 58 and 59: R. INGHAM 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Page 60 and 61: R. INGHAM Did the [+LD] group perfo
Page 62 and 63: R. INGHAM using the Wilcoxon ranked
Page 64 and 65: R. INGHAM representations but also
Page 66 and 67: R. INGHAM Van der Lely, H., & L. St
Page 68 and 69: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS some vene
Page 70 and 71: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS far soone
Page 72 and 73: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS outside l
Page 74 and 75: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS 3. Intern
Page 76 and 77: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS • Varia
Page 78 and 79: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Despite s
Page 80 and 81: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS naturalne
Page 82 and 83: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS apparent
Page 84 and 85: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Summary f
Page 86 and 87: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 2 T
Page 88 and 89: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS regard it
Page 90 and 91: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS The ‘gr
Page 92 and 93: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 4 (
Page 94 and 95: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS sociodemo
Page 96 and 97:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Bardovi-H
Page 98 and 99:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS språkfö
Page 100 and 101:
S. KULKARNI in the Indian caste hie
Page 102 and 103:
S. KULKARNI ideologies, each emphas
Page 104 and 105:
S. KULKARNI century. The Sabha was,
Page 106 and 107:
S. KULKARNI The main study includes
Page 108 and 109:
S. KULKARNI 4. Quantitative Analyse
Page 110 and 111:
S. KULKARNI comparatively lower (in
Page 112 and 113:
S. KULKARNI Table 3: Percentage use
Page 114 and 115:
S. KULKARNI showing an almost compl
Page 116 and 117:
S. KULKARNI 50 mean % std. score 40
Page 118 and 119:
S. KULKARNI 100 mean % std. score 9
Page 120 and 121:
S. KULKARNI Marathi the kin term /m
Page 122 and 123:
S. KULKARNI not by the less-privile
Page 124 and 125:
S. KULKARNI Bapuji, B.R. (1994).
Page 126 and 127:
S. KULKARNI Sastry, J.V. (1993). Re
Page 128 and 129:
J. MARSHALL 2. Change versus Resist
Page 130 and 131:
J. MARSHALL have become more expose
Page 132 and 133:
J. MARSHALL anthropologists. As man
Page 134 and 135:
J. MARSHALL for data such as Milroy
Page 136 and 137:
J. MARSHALL To some extent, [networ
Page 138 and 139:
J. MARSHALL these close-knit ties a
Page 140 and 141:
J. MARSHALL Life mode 1. Life modes
Page 142 and 143:
J. MARSHALL There are, however, som
Page 144 and 145:
J. MARSHALL can choose a high level
Page 146 and 147:
J. MARSHALL Pedersen therefore, lik
Page 148 and 149:
J. MARSHALL case that these people
Page 150 and 151:
J. MARSHALL 6. Research Question an
Page 152 and 153:
J. MARSHALL ‘are high in frequenc
Page 154 and 155:
J. MARSHALL 6.5. Morphological Vari
Page 156 and 157:
J. MARSHALL 4 Do you work/go to sch
Page 158 and 159:
J. MARSHALL 8) I never eat brose or
Page 160 and 161:
J. MARSHALL mentioned, a ‘real ti
Page 162 and 163:
J. MARSHALL 3. LEXREC. This is an i
Page 164 and 165:
J. MARSHALL which comes nearest to
Page 166 and 167:
J. MARSHALL LIFMODLEXREC 60 50 40 L
Page 168 and 169:
J. MARSHALL the different tests wer
Page 170 and 171:
J. MARSHALL PHOVAR = 21.1 + 0.573 A
Page 172 and 173:
J. MARSHALL There is no significant
Page 174 and 175:
J. MARSHALL 7.6. SOCNET as a Predic
Page 176 and 177:
J. MARSHALL SOCNET is again not sig
Page 178 and 179:
J. MARSHALL integrated sociolinguis
Page 180 and 181:
I. SINKA, M. GARMAN AND C. SCHELLET
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?