From intensional properties to universal support

Alber, Birgit; DelBusso, Natalie; Prince, Alan

doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0029

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The set of ERCs delineating a grammar need not define a total – or partial – order over the entirety of Con : not all constraints are crucially ranked relative to one another in a given typology (see Prince 2017 on representing grammars). Identifying which rankings are crucial is the aim of Property Theory (see Alber et al 2016, DelBusso 2018 and Alber & Prince in preparation for introductions to Property Theory).…”

Section: Formal Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This in turn depends on the relationship of the summands in the full system, which can be difficult to ascertain from inspecting violation profiles in a violation tableau, where numerical quirks and other interactions can obscure the interactions. This paper uses Property Theory (Alber et al 2016, DelBusso 2018, Alber & Prince in preparation) to show the effects of summing constraints in two distinct kinds of relationships. The results show the predictable changes, and allow for the systematic comparison of related typologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Summing constraints in and across properties

Bennett

DelBusso

2020

Phonology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work in Optimality Theory on the constraint set, Con, has often raised the question of whether certain types of constraints have multiple specific versions or are single general constraints that effectively sum the violations of specific variants. Comparing and evaluating analyses that differ in this way requires knowing the effect of this kind of summing on the full typology, which itself depends on the relationship of summands in the full system. Such relationships can be difficult to ascertain from inspecting violation profiles alone. This paper uses Property Theory to analyse the systematic effects of summing constraints in two distinct kinds of relationships: (i) across distinct properties, and (ii) within a constraint class in a single property. The results show how these two types collapse the typology in different, yet predictable, ways. Property Analysis provides a key to identifying constraint relationships and so to delineating the effect of summing.

show abstract

Section: Formal Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summing constraints in and across properties

Bennett

DelBusso

2020

Phonology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In analyzing the deeper structure of the 2rt2f typology, and its sub-components, we draw on the concepts and notation of Alber, DelBusso & Prince (2015), and Merchant & Prince (2015). Chief among these is the notion of typological properties, defined as sets of mutually incompatible ranking conditions.…”

Section: Formal Properties Of the Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 5 presents their interactions: the typology predicted when the two very simple fragments are combined into a larger system. Section 6 analyzes the typologies into properties (Alber, Delbusso & Prince 2015, Merchant & Prince 2015, and remarks on the relationship between the properties of the simple fragments and their containment in the larger system. Section 7 reiterates the conclusion: that the predictions of a complex ABCD system are understandable as the interaction of much simpler sub-systems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Formally mapping the typologies of interacting ABCD systems

Bennett

DelBusso

Iacoponi

2016

AMP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABCs of ABCDThe theory of Agreement By Correspondence has gained prominence as a way to explain harmony patterns, especially long-distance consonant agreement (Rose & Walker 2004, Hansson 2010. Bennett (2015) observes that the theory also generates Dissimilation, even with no further assumptions made (ergo 'ABCD'). This connection between dissimilation and assimilation is an appealing result, as it was in a large body of previous work that draws on the same mechanisms for both kinds of patterns (Mester 1986, Yip 1988.Recent work along ABCD lines has developed a range of varying formalizations. One point of variation is the correspondence relation at the heart of the theory, and the formal properties of it: is all correspondence homogenous? Is the relation transitive? Is it symmetric? Accompanying such questions are differences in the formal character of the constraints that refer to the correspondence relation: are agreement violations calculated over whole forms, or locally, based on pairs of correspondence? These points of difference definitively affect the typologies that result -particularly for situations where correspondence and/or agreement constraints based on multiple different features may conflict. Previous work has demonstrated as much through analyses of specific cases that seem to work far better in one version than others.1 But the analysis of individual case studies is not the most pressing question for the modern theorist: the much more important question is which of these different ABCD formulations makes the right typological predictions. Any answer to that question presupposes that we know what the typological predictions are. This is far from simple: all of the various formulations of ABCD are intended to generalize across different features, resulting in fairly large sets of constraints. Moreover, demonstrating all the effects of such constraints requires consideration of multiple segmental forms, with multiple correspondence structures available for each. The result is that we are comparing systems that are sufficiently large that their predictions cannot be deduced from intuition alone. This paper takes a step towards that goal. Our aim is to understand the interaction of two ABCD subsystems. Breaking the theory down into sub-systems, helpfully, models a key point of interest in comparing competing formulations. Many of the known differences between different ABCD formulations emerge from the interaction of two distinct ABCD effects (='ABCDE's: harmony or dissimilation patterns). So, if we want to understand the full predictions of any ABCD theory, we must know what possibilities it admits for the relationship between two harmony/dissimilation systems based on different features.The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. Section 2 defines the sub-systems analyzed here -the candidates and constraints included in each. These are modeled on a real-world point of departure, in the form of Kinyarwanda -a language with harmony among sibilants, and dissimilation between voiceless o...

show abstract

“…We hypothesize that it should not, though we leave the question open. But even without settling the question empirically, we can examine factorial typologies of well defined optimality-theoretic systems (in the sense of Alber, DelBusso, & Prince 2015) to determine whether a theory predicts a language with the phrasing in (5) to be possible. In order to further investigate the phrasing of adjuncts, we examine an additional pair of sentences from Bickmore (1990): a double object construction with a pro subject, as well as a structurally minimally contrasting clause with a right-adjoined adverbial, shown in (6a-b), respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjunction and Branchingness Effects in Syntax-Prosody Mapping

Bellik

Kalivoda

2016

AMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Match Theory (Selkirk 2011) and approaches to syntax-prosody mapping involving alignment and Wrap(XP) (Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999) insist that syntatic phrases at least partially map onto phonological phrases. Each approach specifies that certain XPs are visible for mapping, while others are not. Both Truckenbrodt (1999) and Selkirk (2011) suggest that when an XP hosts an adjunct, only the lower segment of that XP is visible at the interface. We undertake several case studies of these theories' predictions, drawing primarily on data from phrasing in the Bantu language Kinyambo (Bickmore 1990), in order to address the proper interpretation of syntactic adjunction structures at the syntax-phonology interface. To do so, we employ a new JavaScript application which we have developed, Syntax-Prosody in Optimality Theory (SPOT; Bellik, Bellik, & Kalivoda 2016) allowing us to automatically generate and evaluate prosodic tree structures of arbitrary length and depth. We conclude that high segments of XP in syntactic adjunction structures must be visible to Match (pace Selkirk 2011) in order to predict attested prosodic phrasings in Kinyambo, and that treatments of adjunction which ignore the highest segment of a maximal projection make surprising and possibly problematic predictions.

show abstract

From intensional properties to universal support

Cited by 21 publications

References 5 publications

Summing constraints in and across properties

Summing constraints in and across properties

Formally mapping the typologies of interacting ABCD systems

Adjunction and Branchingness Effects in Syntax-Prosody Mapping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About