Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

Abstract

Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama–Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

Unbounded circumambient patterns in segmental phonology

“…In other words, the surface realisation of the medial vowels in (1) depends on both the [ATR] value of the root and the presence or absence of an initial-syllable [+high] vowel. We demonstrate below that this pattern is non-deterministic in exactly the same way that the tonal spreading 1 In what are perhaps more familiar terms, a subset of these unbounded circumambient patterns are non-myopic (Wilson 2003(Wilson , 2006; see also Finley 2008, Walker 2010, Kimper 2012, Mascaró 2019, Stanton 2020). In the descriptively most straightforward hypothetical case of a non-myopic pattern, spreading is simply not triggered when there is a blocking segment anywhere in the form; this is dubbed sour grapes by Wilson (2003Wilson ( , 2006, adapting a term from Padgett (1995).…”

“… 1 In what are perhaps more familiar terms, a subset of these unbounded circumambient patterns are non-myopic (Wilson 2003, 2006; see also Finley 2008, Walker 2010, Kimper 2012, Mascaró 2019, McCollum et al 2020, Stanton 2020). In the descriptively most straightforward hypothetical case of a non-myopic pattern, spreading is simply not triggered when there is a blocking segment anywhere in the form; this is dubbed sour grapes by Wilson (2003, 2006), adapting a term from Padgett (1995).…”

Serial Reduplication Is Empirically Adequate and Typologically Restrictive

“…There is a growing body of literature arguing that there are natural language phenomena that cannot be modeled in HS because they would require derivational lookahead (Adler 2017, Adler and Zymet 2017, Wei 2018, Wei and Walker 2018, 2020, Zymet 2018, Stanton 2020). These works draw on evidence from a diverse set of segmental processes, prosodification, and reduplication to argue that pOT is a more viable model of phonology than HS.…”

Is Sour Grapes Learnable? A Computational and Experimental Approach

“…However, these approaches have been critiqued, since a number of non-myopic phonological patterns do seem to exist (Walker, 2010;Jardine, 2016;McCollum & Essegbey, 2018;Stanton, 2018). Since targeted constraints and SHARE constraints both categorically restrict a grammar so that it can only represent myopic harmony, these patterns are evidence that myopia is not the crucial factor causing Sour Grapes to be unattested.…”