Surface Correspondence and Discrete Harmony Triggers

Abstract

Correspondence relations among segments in an output, known as surface correspondence, provide a means for enforcing (dis)agreement among segments (Hansson 2001, Rose & Walker 2004, Bennett 2013). This paper examines implications of partially overlapping harmony patterns for the formal properties of surface correspondence. A novel and unwanted typological prediction of transitive surface correspondence relations with chain-adjacent evaluation of identity is identified, dubbed the Closest Correspondent Trigger Prediction. The problem is exemplified by the interaction of two overlapping vowel harmonies in the Pasiego Monta–es dialect, where a target vowel agrees with different trigger segments for different features. A revised feature-restricted evaluation of identity constraints that operate over surface correspondents is proposed, where evaluation is restricted to the subset of correspondents that share a given set of features. This move merges the previous division of labor in surface correspondence theory between constraints that promote interactions among similar segments and those that enforce identity between them. The result is a theory where surface identity constraints are the prime locus of pattern-shaping and the role for constraints that drive surface correspondence is reduced. Future directions on the status of constraints that drive surface correspondence and the treatment of locality are considered.

Looking into Segments

“…However, ABC has since been extended to vowel harmony (Sasa 2009;Rhodes 2012;Walker 2015;a.o. ) and to tone and consonant tone interactions (Shih 2013, Shih & Inkelas 2014.…”

“…Because CORR and IDENT constraints are so closely associated (neither having an effect unless both are high-ranked), several researchers have proposed essentially merging them into a single constraint that compels both correspondence and identity. We follow Lionnet (2014) and Walker (2015) in co-indexing each IDENT-XX constraint to a specific CORR-XX constraint. This move helps manage multiple correspondence domains at work within a single word (vs. the singular correspondence sets of Bennett (2013)).…”

A unified account of conditioned phonological alternations: Evidence from Guébie

“…Assign one violation for each output form where at least one pair of sonorant consonants meets these criteria. I use agreement-by-projection (ABP) constraints (proposed by Hansson (2014), and illustrated in Walker 2016and Lionnet 2016 to account for ATR and nasal harmony. ABP constraints conflate the work of the agreement-by-correspondence (ABC) constraints Corr and CC-Ident[F] (Hansson 2001, Rose & Walker 2004 into a single constraint by evaluating only those segments with a particular feature (here [+syllabic] for ATR harmony and [+sonorant, +consonantal] for nasal harmony), on a separate tier from the rest of the word or phrase under evaluation.…”

Majority Rule in Harmonic Serialism

“…All that matters is that it penalizes candidates in which the two classes co-occur. Whether evaluated globally, assigning violations to every pair of corresponding segments that disagree in [anterior] (Bennett, 2013(Bennett, , 2015Hansson, 2001Hansson, , 2010Rose & Walker, 2004;Walker, 2000), or evaluated locally, only assigning violations to tier-adjacent disagreeing segments (Hansson, 2007(Hansson, , 2014Pulleyblank, 2002;Walker, 2015), CC-IDENT(ANTERIOR) motivates Majority Rule. In pOT, it does not matter exactly how many violations candidate (2b) incurs, provided it incurs more than candidates (2c-d).…”