Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Derived Environment EffectsLong-distance interactions in phonology ⋆ Lecture 5
Peter Jurgec
University of Toronto
LOT Summer School ⋆ Leuven ⋆ June 26, 2015
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Outline
Highlights
Derived environment effects (DEEs) are alternations that arelimited to morphologically complex words.
DEEs are thought to be local, but can also be long-distance.
I will propose an analysis based on Licensed Alignment.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Outline
Preview: Main claims
DEEs can be both local and long-distance.
DEE can be blocked both locally and long-distance.
The locality facts in long-distance DEEs are unlike the onesfound with other segmental patterns.
Long-distance DEEs are challenging for phonological theory.
Long-distance DEEs are predicted by Licensed Alignment.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Roadmap
1 Introduction
2 DEEs
3 Oprah Effect
4 Licensed Alignment Analysis
5 Further predictions
6 DEE blocking
7 Conclusions
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Derived Environment Effects
{Kiparsky 1973; Lubowicz 2002; Mascaro 2003; Iverson 2004; Hall 2006; van
Oostendorp 2007; Anttila 2009; Wolf 2008; Burzio 2011}
Phonological patterns are typically unaffected by morphemeboundaries, and apply both within morphemes and acrossmorpheme boundaries.
Derived Environment Effects (DEEs) are alternations that arelimited to morphologically complex words, and do not appearin morphologically simpler words.
Typically the alternations appear at the morpheme boundary.
Let’s look at the same pattern that is a DEE in one language,but not in another.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Example: Assibilation
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Example: Assibilation
Assibilation t → s / i
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Example: Assibilation
Assibilation t → s / i
Tawala assibilation applies regardless of morpheme boundaries(Ezard 1997:30)variant a variant b
emote emosi *emoti ‘one’hota hosi *hoti ‘only’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Example: Assibilation
Assibilation t → s / i
Tawala assibilation applies regardless of morpheme boundaries(Ezard 1997:30)variant a variant b
emote emosi *emoti ‘one’hota hosi *hoti ‘only’
Finnish assibilation applies only across the morphemeboundary (Kiparsky 1973:60)a. halut-a ‘(to) want’
*halut-i halus-i ‘wanted’b. koti *kosi ‘home’c. tilas-i *silas-i ‘s/he ordered’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Locality in DEEs
Finnish presents a case of local DEEs.
Local DEEs are quite common and have been documented inthe literature early on.
Local DEEs are unsurprising given what we know aboutlocality in phonology.
There are many rather straightforward analyses of DEEs. In anutshell, the constraint/rule must refer to morphemeboundary.
More recently, several long-distance DEEs have been reported.The phenomenon is termed the Oprah effect (Jurgec 2014).
The Oprah Effect will be the focus of today’s lecture.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Oprah effect
Some speakers of Dutch can pronounce [ô] in recent loanwordsfrom English, as long as they lack a suffix. In suffixed words,the rhotic is replaced by the native [ö].
Dutch affixation: ô → öbare root ô derived öOp[ô]ah ‘Oprah’ Op[ö]ah-tje *Op[ô]ah-tje ‘dimin’Ba[ô]ack ‘Barack’ Ba[ö]ack-se *Ba[ô]ack-se ‘adj’[ô]eading ‘Reading’ [ö]eading-je *[ô]eading-je ‘dimin’Flo[ô]ida ‘Florida’ Flo[ö]ida-tje *Flo[ô]ida-tje ‘dimin’
All r’s in the root are affected, regardless of their distancefrom the suffix.
Spoiler alert: This pattern has been in native words (e.g.Russian) and well-integrated loanwords (Tagalog) as well.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Defining Derived Environment Effects
Significance of the data
The Oprah Effect appears unlike any of the patterns welooked at so far:
Alternation applies at a great distance.Suffix and the target sound do not share a straightforwardphonetic connection. Many suffixes act as triggers, regardlessof their segmental content.
If so, then DEEs are perhaps a very different kind of animal.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Loanword exceptionality
Loanwords often exhibit non-native structures (sounds, soundsequences, prosody).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Loanword exceptionality
Loanwords often exhibit non-native structures (sounds, soundsequences, prosody).
Some of these are replaced by the corresponding nativestructures only in morphologically integrated loanwords, bothdiachronically and synchronically (Bloomfield 1933:447ff.;Holden 1976; Franks 1991; LaCharite & Paradis 2005;Kubozono 2006).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Loanword exceptionality
Loanwords often exhibit non-native structures (sounds, soundsequences, prosody).
Some of these are replaced by the corresponding nativestructures only in morphologically integrated loanwords, bothdiachronically and synchronically (Bloomfield 1933:447ff.;Holden 1976; Franks 1991; LaCharite & Paradis 2005;Kubozono 2006).
Morphology can affect the distribution of foreign sounds.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Loanword exceptionality
Loanwords often exhibit non-native structures (sounds, soundsequences, prosody).
Some of these are replaced by the corresponding nativestructures only in morphologically integrated loanwords, bothdiachronically and synchronically (Bloomfield 1933:447ff.;Holden 1976; Franks 1991; LaCharite & Paradis 2005;Kubozono 2006).
Morphology can affect the distribution of foreign sounds.
Example: Dutch Oprah Effect
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Conventional wisdom
One standard approach to the above pattern is to say that thespeakers of Dutch employ two different cophonologies.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Conventional wisdom
One standard approach to the above pattern is to say that thespeakers of Dutch employ two different cophonologies.
Loanword roots take the foreign cophonology (allowing ô),whereas the suffixes take the native cophonology (no onset ô).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Conventional wisdom
One standard approach to the above pattern is to say that thespeakers of Dutch employ two different cophonologies.
Loanword roots take the foreign cophonology (allowing ô),whereas the suffixes take the native cophonology (no onset ô).
Whenever both kinds of morphemes appear in the same word,the suffix trumps the root, and the native cophonology appliesto the whole word (along the lines of Kiparsky 1973;Zonneveld 1978; Inkelas & Zoll 2007).
Exceptionality and morphological structure
[root✘✘✘foreign+affix]native
rootforeign affixnative
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Conventional wisdom
One standard approach to the above pattern is to say that thespeakers of Dutch employ two different cophonologies.
Loanword roots take the foreign cophonology (allowing ô),whereas the suffixes take the native cophonology (no onset ô).
Whenever both kinds of morphemes appear in the same word,the suffix trumps the root, and the native cophonology appliesto the whole word (along the lines of Kiparsky 1973;Zonneveld 1978; Inkelas & Zoll 2007).
Exceptionality and morphological structure
[root✘✘✘foreign+affix]native
rootforeign affixnative
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Challenges
In what follows, I’ll show that the cophonology approach fails:1 It is unclear why only some native affixes are triggers.2 Native words also exhibit the Oprah Effect.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Challenges
In what follows, I’ll show that the cophonology approach fails:1 It is unclear why only some native affixes are triggers.2 Native words also exhibit the Oprah Effect.
Other alternatives also face challenges.1 Positional faithfulness approach: bare roots are more faithful
than morphologically complex words. Challenge: Positionalfaithfulness treats all roots identically, regardless if bare orderived.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Attempted analysis
Challenges
In what follows, I’ll show that the cophonology approach fails:1 It is unclear why only some native affixes are triggers.2 Native words also exhibit the Oprah Effect.
Other alternatives also face challenges.1 Positional faithfulness approach: bare roots are more faithful
than morphologically complex words. Challenge: Positionalfaithfulness treats all roots identically, regardless if bare orderived.
2 Stratal approach: phonological operations apply within theroot-level at one cycle, then at stem-level at the next cycle,then at word-level. Challenge: The word-level phonologyapplies to all roots.
In short, the Oprah effect is a challenge for phonologicaltheory.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
More Dutch
Dutch and affix position
Not all affixes have the same effect.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
More Dutch
Dutch and affix position
Not all affixes have the same effect.
Derivational suffixes trigger the Oprah Effect, but inflectionalsuffixes, or prefixes do not.
Dutch: ô ∼ ö‘Oprah’ ‘Florida’
No affix ô Op[ô]ah Flo[ô]idaPrefix ô
‘main, true’ hoofd-op[ô]ah hoofd-flo[ô]idaInflectional suffix ô
‘pl’ Op[ô]ah’[s] Flo[ô]ida’[s]Derivational suffix ö
‘dimin’ Op[ö]ah-tje Flo[ö]ida-tje*Op[ô]ah-tje *Flo[ô]ida-tje
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Tagalog
Not all languages behave like Dutch.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Tagalog
Not all languages behave like Dutch.
Tagalog replaces the foreign [f] in bare roots with [p] insuffixed and prefixed words.
Tagalog: f ∼ p‘Filipino’ ‘feast’
No affix f [f]ilipino [f]iestaPrefix p
‘instr’ pam-[p]ilipino pam-[p]ista*pam-[f]ilipino *pam-[f]iesta
Suffix p
‘def’ [p]ilipino-ng [p]ista-ng*[f]ilipino-ng *[f]iesta-ng
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
English
Canadian English is a third kind of language that allows theFrench [ö] in words with prefixes, but not in words with infixesor suffixes.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
English
Canadian English is a third kind of language that allows theFrench [ö] in words with prefixes, but not in words with infixesor suffixes.Canadian English: ö ∼ ô
‘Chretien’ ‘au pair’No affix ö köetjE opEöPrefix ö
‘ex-’ Eks-köetjE Eks-opEöInfix ô‘expl’ kôeI-f2kIN-tjEn oU-f2kIN-pE@ô
*köe-f2kIN-tjE *o-f2kIN-pEö-zSuffix ô
‘pl’ kôeItjEn-z oUpE@ô-z*köetjE-z *opEö-z
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Affix position
The cross-linguistic variation can be reduced to two variables.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Affix position
The cross-linguistic variation can be reduced to two variables.Foreign structure allowed?
no affix example
affix prefix suffix infix language
i ✗ ✗ ✗ (✗) manyii ✓ ✗ ✗ Slovenianiii ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ Tagalogiv ✓ ✓ ✗ Dutchv ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ Englishvi ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) many
Other types have not been found. Some appear impossible(e.g. Anti-Tagalog, Anti-English), whereas others are onlyunlikely (e.g. Anti-Dutch).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Inflection v. derivation
Foreign structure allowed?no suffix example
affix inflection derivation languages
i ✗ ✗ ✗ manyii ✓ ✗ ✗ English, Ukrainianiii ✓ ✓ ✗ Dutch, Catalaniv ✓ ✓ ✓ many
Anti-Dutch has not been found.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Interim summary
1 Oprah Effects are language specific:
There restrictions do not seem to follow from any otherproperties of the languages in question.For instance, inflection in Dutch appears to be very similar toinflection in English, yet Dutch allows the relevantforeign/marked structures with inflection, while English doesnot.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Other languages
Interim summary
1 Oprah Effects are language specific:
There restrictions do not seem to follow from any otherproperties of the languages in question.For instance, inflection in Dutch appears to be very similar toinflection in English, yet Dutch allows the relevantforeign/marked structures with inflection, while English doesnot.
2 There are some notable gaps:
If a marked structure is allowed in affixed words, it will beallowed in non-affixed words.If a marked structure is allowed in infixed words, it will beallowed in either prefixed or/and suffixed words.If a marked structure is allowed in inflected words, it will beallowed in derived words.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Licensed Alignment Analysis
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Generalizations about DEEs
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Generalizations about DEEs
Two components:
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Generalizations about DEEs
Two components:
1 phonological (marked sounds ∼ unmarked sounds)2 morphological (polymorphemic ∼ monomorphemic)
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Generalizations about DEEs
Two components:
1 phonological (marked sounds ∼ unmarked sounds)2 morphological (polymorphemic ∼ monomorphemic)
I will now show that Licensed Alignment can capture theOprah Effect as well as (some cases of) local DEEs.
In a nutshell, Licensed Alignment restricts the distribution ofsounds in affixed words.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Licensed Alignment
Recall the template:*〈domain, F, cat〉 / domain
F catAssign a violation mark for every triplet 〈domain, F, cat〉,when F precedes cat within the domain.
Cat cannot be a non-prominent position.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Recall Assibilation
Assibilation t → s / i
Tawala assibilation applies regardless of morpheme boundaries(Ezard 1997:30)variant a variant b
emote emosi *emoti ‘one’hota hosi *hoti ‘only’
Finnish assibilation applies only across the morphemeboundary (Kiparsky 1973:60)a. halut-a ‘(to) want’
*halut-i halus-i ‘wanted’b. koti *kosi ‘home’c. tilas-i *silas-i ‘s/he ordered’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Assibilation and Licensed Alignment
Assibilation can be analyzed as spreading of the feature[+continuant] (Hall & Hamann 2006, Bateman 2007).
*ω[×,+continuant]
*〈ω,×, [+cont]〉 / ω
× [+cont]
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Tawala assibilation
/tilat-i/ *σ[×,+cont] Ident
a. ti.la.t-i 〈σ,t,[+cont]〉! 〈σ,t,[+cont]〉
b. ti.la.s-i 〈σ,t,[+cont]〉! *
c. ☞ si.la.s-i **
Note: Additional constraints are required to restrict spreadingto a particular trigger and target segment (see Jurgec 2011 fora proposal).
Candidate (b) is harmonically bounded.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Finnish assibilation
Licensed Alignment constraints can also refer tomorphological domains.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Finnish assibilation
Licensed Alignment constraints can also refer tomorphological domains.
*ω[morpheme,+continuant]
*〈ω, m, [+cont]〉 / ω
m [+cont]
In Finnish, this constraint is ranked highest.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Assibilation
Finnish assibilation
/tilat-i/ *ω[m,+cont] Id *σ[×,+cont]
a. ti.la.t-i 〈ω,tilat,[+cont]〉! 〈σ,t,[+cont]〉,〈σ,t,[+cont]〉
b. ☞ ti.la.s-i * 〈σ,t,[+cont]〉
c. si.la.s-i **!
The dominant *ω[m,+cont] limits spreading toheteromorphemic targets, Ident prefers minimal spreading,while *σ[×,+cont] chooses the actual onset target.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Recall Dutch
Derivational suffixes trigger the Oprah Effect, but notinflectional suffixes, or prefixes.
Dutch: ô ∼ ö‘Oprah’ ‘Florida’
No affix ô Op[ô]ah Flo[ô]idaPrefix ô
‘main, true’ hoofd-op[ô]ah hoofd-flo[ô]idaInflectional suffix ô
‘pl’ Op[ô]ah’[s] Flo[ô]ida’[s]Derivational suffix ö
‘dimin’ Op[ö]ah-tje Flo[ö]ida-tje*Op[ô]ah-tje *Flo[ô]ida-tje
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Morphological structure
Only derivational suffixes trigger the Oprah Effect.type structure ô allowed?
Bare root {[root]stem}word ✓
Prefixed {affix-[root]stem}word ✓
Inflected {[root]stem-affix}word ✓
Derived {[root-affix]stem}word ✗
Generalization: Some feature (or a combination of features)of the English rhotic cannot be followed by an affix, within thestem.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Licensed Alignment & Dutch
Some feature (or a combination of features) of the Englishrhotic cannot be followed by an affix, within the stem.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Licensed Alignment & Dutch
Some feature (or a combination of features) of the Englishrhotic cannot be followed by an affix, within the stem.
For simplicity, the relevant features of the rhotic arehenceforth replaced with “ô”.
Licensed Alignment cannot refer to affixes, but can refer tomorphemes.
The constraint active in Dutch is *stem[ô, morheme].
*stem[ô, morpheme]*〈stem, ô, morpheme〉 / stem
ô morhemeThis constraint is violated by triplets 〈stem, ô, morpheme〉,when [ô] precedes the morpheme, within the stem.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Ranking
LA constraints can be satisfied by spreading the relevantfeature to a suffix segment.
While there are cases of harmony that target only a singlesegment in the suffix (Kaplan 2008; Walker 2011), this is notwhat happens in Dutch, which instead prefers a featurechange.
This suggest that the faithfulness constraints prefer themapping /ô/ → [ö] rather than spreading, or deletion of [ô].
The LA constraint is violated whenever a derivational affixfollows a root containing an [ô], in which case [ö] surfacesinstead.
Crucially, bare roots, inflected and prefixed words satisfy LA,and hence the faithful candidate wins.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
ô not possible with derivational suffixes
/flOôida-tj@stem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. flOôida-tj@stem 〈stem,ô,tj@〉!
b. ☞ flOöida-tj@stem *
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
ô not possible with derivational suffixes
/flOôida-tj@stem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. flOôida-tj@stem 〈stem,ô,tj@〉!
b. ☞ flOöida-tj@stem *
ô possible in bare roots
/flOôidastem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. ☞ flOôidastem
b. flOöidastem *!
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux, continued
ô possible in bare roots
/flOôidastem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. ☞ flOôidastem
b. flOöidastem *!
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux, continued
ô possible in bare roots
/flOôidastem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. ☞ flOôidastem
b. flOöidastem *!
ô possible with prefixes and inflections
/hoft-flOôidastem-s/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. ☞ hoft-flOôidastem-s
b. hoft-flOöidastem-s *!
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Other languages
The LA approach can be easily extended to capture otherlanguages.
When the precedence relations are reversed, prefixes triggerthe Oprah Effect.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Other languages
The LA approach can be easily extended to capture otherlanguages.
When the precedence relations are reversed, prefixes triggerthe Oprah Effect.
In Tagalog, prefixes and suffixes trigger the Oprah Effect,which means that two mirror LA constraints are required.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Recall Tagalog
Tagalog replaces the foreign [f] in bare roots with [p] insuffixed and prefixed words.
Tagalog: f ∼ p‘Filipino’ ‘feast’
No affix f [f]ilipino [f]iestaPrefix p
‘instr’ pam-[p]ilipino pam-[p]ista*pam-[f]ilipino *pam-[f]iesta
Suffix p
‘def’ [p]ilipino-ng [p]ista-ng*[f]ilipino-ng *[f]iesta-ng
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Constraint
In Tagalog both prefixes and suffixes trigger the alternation/f/ → [p].
The active LA constraint in Tagalog is *PWd[f, morpheme].
*PWd[f, morpheme]*〈PWd, f, morpheme〉 / PWd
f morpheme
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
Unlike in Dutch, the mirror constraint *PWd[morpheme, f] isalso ranked about Ident.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
Unlike in Dutch, the mirror constraint *PWd[morpheme, f] isalso ranked about Ident.f not possible with suffixes
/filipino-N/ *ω[morpheme,f] *ω[f,morpheme] Ident
a. filipino-N 〈ω,f,N〉!
b. ☞ pilipino-N *
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Tableaux
Unlike in Dutch, the mirror constraint *PWd[morpheme, f] isalso ranked about Ident.f not possible with suffixes
/filipino-N/ *ω[morpheme,f] *ω[f,morpheme] Ident
a. filipino-N 〈ω,f,N〉!
b. ☞ pilipino-N *
f not possible with prefixes
/pam-filipino/ *ω[morpheme,f] *ω[f,morpheme] Ident
a. pam-filipino 〈ω,pam,f〉!
b. ☞ pam-pilipino *
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Corpus data for fiesta/pista ‘feast’ (Zuraw 2006, p.c.)
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Corpus data for fiesta/pista ‘feast’ (Zuraw 2006, p.c.)
morphemes f variant # p variant # %p√
fiesta 952 pista 416 30√
-af fiesta-ng 4 pista-ng 65 94
fiesta-han 9 pista-han 26 74
af-√
pam-fiesta 0 pam-pista 22 100
mag-fiesta 0 mag-pista 10 100
nag-fiesta 2 nag-pista 6 75
di-fiesta 0 di-pista 5 100
af-af-√
mag-pa-fiesta 9 mag-pa-pista 0 0
af-√
-af ka-fiesta-han 1 pista-han 399 100
pag-fiesta-an 1 pista-an 16 94
af-√
-af-af ka-fiesta-ha-ng 0 ka-pista-ha-ng 40 100
a<af>f-√
-af p<in>ag-fiesta-han 1 p<in>ag-pista-han 18 95
27 607 96
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Explaining variation
3 different grammars/variants.
Tagalog: f/v possible?var a var b var c var d
root ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗
root + affix ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓
attested attested attested unattested30% 4% 66% 0%
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Explaining variation
3 different grammars/variants.
Tagalog: f/v possible?var a var b var c var d
root ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗
root + affix ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓
attested attested attested unattested30% 4% 66% 0%
These differences can be accounted for by making use of OTapproaches to variation (either indexed constraints orcophonologies).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Interim summary
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Oprah Effect
Interim summary
We have seen that Licensed Alignment can capture local andlong-distance DEEs.
Faithfulness constraints prefer feature change/deletion ratherthan spreading (as attested in some cases of assimilation).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Further predictions
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Multiple LA constraints
Beyond affix position and type
LA makes further predictions about how the Oprah Effect canbe affected by morphological domains.
These are dependent upon the domains precedencerelationships in LA.
In particular, LA establishes a precedence relationship betweenunlike constituents: features/segments and morphologicaldomains.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Multiple LA constraints
Inflected implies derived
Generalization:No language shows the Oprah Effect only with inflectional,but not derivational, suffixes.
Explanation:There is no domain common to roots and inflectional affixesto the exclusion of derivational affixes.
Example languages:None. The opposite pattern is frequent.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Multiple LA constraints
Multiple Oprah Effects in a single language
Generalization:Oprah Effects within a single language may differ with respectto their domains.
Explanation:LA constraints refer to a particular sound/feature. This meansthat each individual sound is generally independent of othersounds.
Example languages:English, Slovenian.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Multiple LA constraints
Slovenian r
Slovenian exhibits a ô ∼ R alternation, which is similar to theDutch one. Any affixation triggers the Oprah Effect.
Slovenian affixation: ô → R
‘Robin’ ‘Reagan’
bare root ô ôObin ôEgan
inflected R Robin-u Regan-i
derived R Robin-ow Regan-tS@k
prefixed R pod-Robin nad-Regan
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Multiple LA constraints
Slovenian schwa
Schwa that appears in bare roots is retained in inflectedwords, but is replaced with [e] in derived words.Slovenian derivation only: @ → e
‘Massachusetts’ ‘Tenesse’
bare root @ mEsetSus@ts tEn@si
inflected @ mesetSus@ts-a ten@si-jem
derived e mesetSusets-tSan tenesi-ski*mesetSus@ts-tSan *ten@si-ski
The same variation that has been observed cross-linguisticallycan also occur within the same language.This sort of variation is predicted by LA, since each segmentcomes with its own set of LA constraints, and LA constraintsmay be sensitive to different domains.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Infixes
Generalization:Infixes always pattern with suffixes and/or prefixes. This ispart of a more general, edge preference of infixes (Yu 2007).
Explanation:Definition of precedence in LA matters. Precedence in LAinvolves both features and morphological domains. An infixprecedes the whole root (and vice versa).
Example language:English.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Zero affixes
Generalization:Zero affixes work like regular affixes (but floating affixes donot).
Explanation:LA constraints refer to an affix, regardless of itssegmental/feature content.
Example languages:Dutch, English.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation
Example: Verbs in Dutch
First person singular verbal forms in Dutch morphologicallydiffer from uninflected nouns, even though they may besegmentally identical.
Yet they do contain a zero morpheme.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation
Example: Verbs in Dutch
First person singular verbal forms in Dutch morphologicallydiffer from uninflected nouns, even though they may besegmentally identical.
Yet they do contain a zero morpheme.
Evidence: Final n-deletion
1 Optional in nouns: [tek@n] ∼ [tek@] ‘sign’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation
Example: Verbs in Dutch
First person singular verbal forms in Dutch morphologicallydiffer from uninflected nouns, even though they may besegmentally identical.
Yet they do contain a zero morpheme.
Evidence: Final n-deletion
1 Optional in nouns: [tek@n] ∼ [tek@] ‘sign’2 Not possible in verbs: [tek@n], never *[tek@] ‘(I) draw’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation in loanwords
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation in loanwords
Recall the Dutch ô ∼ ö pattern.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero affixation in loanwords
Recall the Dutch ô ∼ ö pattern.
Dutch zero derivation counts as derivationBa[ô]ack ‘Barack’ Ba[ö]ack-∅ *Ba[ô]ack-∅ ‘Barack-1sg’Op[ô]ah ‘Oprah’ Op[ö]ah-∅ *Op[ô]ah-∅ ‘Oprah-1sg’Flo[ô]ida ‘Florida’ Flo[ö]ida-∅ *Flo[ô]ida-∅ ‘Florida.1sg’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero derivation, cont’d
ô not possible with derivational suffixes
/flOôida-tj@stem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. flOôida-tj@stem 〈stem,ô,tj@〉!
b. ☞ flOöida-tj@stem *
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Dutch zero derivation, cont’d
ô not possible with derivational suffixes
/flOôida-tj@stem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. flOôida-tj@stem 〈stem,ô,tj@〉!
b. ☞ flOöida-tj@stem *
ô not possible with zero derivational suffixes
/flOôida-∅stem/ *stem[ô,morpheme] Ident
a. flOôida-∅stem *!
b. ☞ flOöida-∅stem *
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Epenthesis
Generalization:Epenthetic segments cannot trigger the Oprah Effect (but canundergo it).
Explanation:LA constraints require a morphological trigger and asegmental target.Epenthetic segments have not morphological affiliation, hencethey cannot act as triggers.Epenthetic segments have some feature content, and can betargeted.
Example language:Slovenian.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Slovenian
Example: Velar nasals in English roots borrowed intoSlovenian
These loanwords typically retain velar nasals.
Yet velar nasals are not possible in Slovenian unless they arefollowed by a velar obstruent.
Two repairs:
1 velar stop insertion (e.g. [swiNk] ‘swing’)2 nasal place assimilation
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Precedence in LA
Slovenian
Example: Velar nasals in English roots borrowed intoSlovenian
These loanwords typically retain velar nasals.
Yet velar nasals are not possible in Slovenian unless they arefollowed by a velar obstruent.
Two repairs:
1 velar stop insertion (e.g. [swiNk] ‘swing’)2 nasal place assimilation
Epenthetic segments do not trigger the Oprah Effect/tuôiN/ → tuôiNrootk ‘(Alan) Turing’/tuôiN-Sk-i/ → tuRin-Ski *tuôin-Sk-i ‘Turing-adj’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Local blocking
Derived Environment Effect Blocking
Local DEEs can also be blocked locally.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Local blocking
Derived Environment Effect Blocking
Local DEEs can also be blocked locally.
Assibilation blocked in German (Hall 2006)a. Assibilation of t before j
ne:gat-i:f negaţ-jo:n ‘negative/negation’EksIstEnt EksIstEnţ-ja:l ‘existent/existential’
b. Assibilation blocked after sibilantsbast-jo:n *basţ-jo:n ‘bastion’aUtozUgEst-jo:n *aUtozUgEsţ-jo:n ‘autosuggestion’
c. Underlying tautomorphemic /sţ/ sequencesdisţipli:n ‘discipline’EksţEs-i:f ‘excessive’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Local blocking
Slovenian palatalization
Slovenian palatalization turns velars into postalveolars beforecertain suffixes.
Palatalization is a DEEa. ki possible morpheme-internally
skiţ-a ‘sketch’kil-a ‘hernia’
b. k → Ù at the morpheme boundaryReÙ-iţa ‘river-dim’ Rek-a ‘river’smReÙ-ina ‘spruce forest’ smRek-a ‘spruce’
This resembles Finnish assibilation.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Posteolars block palatalization at a distance
Palatalization is blocked when the stem contains anotherpostalveolar.
roots k/Ù . . . k/Ù palatalization k → Ù pal blocked k → *Ù
skOk ‘jump’ oblaÙ-ţa ‘cloud-dim’ Ùok-ţa ‘slab-dim’kokoS ‘chicken’ mleÙ-ţa ‘milk-dim’ SÙuk-ţa ‘pike-dim’kRik ‘yelling’ baRÙ-iţa ‘boat-dim’ Ù@Rk-iţa ‘letter-dim’kaÙ-a ‘snake’ ReÙ-iţa ‘river-dim’ xÙIRk-iţa ‘daughter-dim’Ùuk ‘owl’ enaÙ-iţa ‘equation’ Ù@Rk-owje ‘letter-ing’ÙenÙ-a ‘roomer’ bodiÙ-ewje ‘thornes’ Skolk-iţa ‘shellfish-dim’
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Posteolars block palatalization at a distance
Palatalization is blocked when the stem contains anotherpostalveolar.
roots k/Ù . . . k/Ù palatalization k → Ù pal blocked k → *Ù
skOk ‘jump’ oblaÙ-ţa ‘cloud-dim’ Ùok-ţa ‘slab-dim’kokoS ‘chicken’ mleÙ-ţa ‘milk-dim’ SÙuk-ţa ‘pike-dim’kRik ‘yelling’ baRÙ-iţa ‘boat-dim’ Ù@Rk-iţa ‘letter-dim’kaÙ-a ‘snake’ ReÙ-iţa ‘river-dim’ xÙIRk-iţa ‘daughter-dim’Ùuk ‘owl’ enaÙ-iţa ‘equation’ Ù@Rk-owje ‘letter-ing’ÙenÙ-a ‘roomer’ bodiÙ-ewje ‘thornes’ Skolk-iţa ‘shellfish-dim’
Does this resemble any other known patterns?
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Japanese Rendaku & Lyman’s Law
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Japanese Rendaku & Lyman’s Law
Japanese Rendaku voicing (Vance 1987; Ito & Mester 1986,et seq.)take + sao → take-zao ‘bamboo pole’ Voicing in compoundsde + kutSi → de-gutsi ‘exit’ike + hana → ike-bana ‘ikebana’hitori + tabi→ hitori-tabi ‘traveling alone’ Blocking
Lyman’s Law
Japanese native roots have at most one voiced obstruent. Thishas been described as an OCP effect (Ito & Mester 1986 etseq.).
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Japanese Rendaku & Lyman’s Law
Japanese Rendaku voicing (Vance 1987; Ito & Mester 1986,et seq.)take + sao → take-zao ‘bamboo pole’ Voicing in compoundsde + kutSi → de-gutsi ‘exit’ike + hana → ike-bana ‘ikebana’hitori + tabi→ hitori-tabi ‘traveling alone’ Blocking
Lyman’s Law
Japanese native roots have at most one voiced obstruent. Thishas been described as an OCP effect (Ito & Mester 1986 etseq.).However, the effect has been found in loanwords (Tateishi2003; Kawahara 2012; Sano 2012), where it is gradient.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Long-distance blocking
Bigger picture
This interpretation of the data fills the gap in the typology ofDEEs and their blocking.
DEEs can be local and long-distance.
Typology of DEEs
DEE Blocking Example pattern
Local Local German assibilationLong-distance Japanese Rendaku
Long-distance Tagalog f ∼ p
Blocking in long-distance DEEs has not been studied yet.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Conclusions
We have looked at Derived Environment Effects in variouslanguages.
Empirical observations:
DEEs can be both local and long-distance.DEEs have specific morphological and phonological properties.DEEs can be blocked locally or long-distance.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Conclusions
We have looked at Derived Environment Effects in variouslanguages.
Empirical observations:
DEEs can be both local and long-distance.DEEs have specific morphological and phonological properties.DEEs can be blocked locally or long-distance.
Theoretical account:
Long-distance DEEs are hard to model.Licensed Alignment predicts long-distance DEEs.Licensed Alignment is a powerful tool that has been used forprosody, segmental patterns (assimilation, dissimilation), andDEEs.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Thank you!
Keep in touch:
http://www.jurgec.net
http://www.facebook.com/phonology
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Derived Environment EffectsLong-distance interactions in phonology ⋆ Lecture 5
Peter Jurgec
University of Toronto
LOT Summer School ⋆ Leuven ⋆ June 26, 2015
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Anttila, Arto (2009). Derived Environment Effects and colloquial HelsinkiFinnish. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.) The Nature of the Word:
Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 433–460.
Bateman, Nicoleta (2007). A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization.Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Burzio, Luigi (2011). Derived environment effects. In Marc van Oostendorp,Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren D. Rice (eds.) The Blackwell
Companion to Phonology , Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2091–2116.
Ezard, Bryan (1997). A grammar of Tawala: an Austronesian language of the
Milne Bay area, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific linguistics.
Franks, Steven (1991). Diacritic extrametricality vs. diacritic accent: a reply toHammond. Phonology 8. 145–161.
Hall, Tracy Alan (2006). Derived environment blocking effects in OptimalityTheory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24. 803–856.
Hall, Tracy Alan & Silke Hamann (2006). Towards a typology of stopassibilation. Linguistics 44. 1195–1236.
Holden, Kyril (1976). Assimilation rates of borrowings and phonologicalproductivity. Language 52. 131–147.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll (2007). Is grammar dependence real? Acomparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches tomorphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–172.
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester (1986). he phonology of voicing in Japanese:theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry
17. 49–73.
Iverson, Gregory K. (2004). Deriving the Derived Environment Constraint innon-derivational phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and
Morphology 10. 1–21.
Jurgec, Peter (2011). Feature Spreading 2.0: A Unified Theory of Assimilation.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available on LingBuzz,http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001281.
Jurgec, Peter (2014). Morphology affects loanword phonology. In Hsin-LunHuang, Ethan Poole & Amanda Rysling (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 43 ,Amherst, MA: GLSA, vol. I. 191–202.
Kaplan, Aaron (2008). Noniterativity is an emergent property of grammar .Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available onRutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 977, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.)Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory , Tokyo: TEC. 1–136.
Kubozono, Haruo (2006). Where does loanword prosody come from? A casestudy of Japanese loanword accent. Lingua 116. 1140–1170.
LaCharite, Darlene & Carole Paradis (2005). Category preservation andproximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic
Inquiry 36. 223–258.
Lubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory.Lingua 112. 243–280.
Mascaro, Joan (2003). Comparative markedness and derived environments.Theoretical Linguistics 29. 113–122.
van Oostendorp, Marc (2007). Derived Environment Effects and Consistency ofExponence. In Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye & Martin Kramer (eds.) Freedom of
Analysis? , Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 123–148. Available onRutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 851, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Vance, Timothy J. (1987). An Introduction to Japanese Phonology . Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.
Walker, Rachel (2011). Vowel patterns in language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
Introduction DEEs Oprah Effect Licensed Alignment Analysis Further predictions DEE blocking Conclusions References
Wolf, Matthew Adam (2008). Optimal Interleaving: Serial
Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model . Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available on RutgersOptimality Archive, ROA 996, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Yu, Alan (2007). A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Zonneveld, Wim (1978). A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative
Phonology . Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.
Peter Jurgec University of Toronto
Derived Environment Effects
![Dees l1 6-estimation[1]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/588005b81a28ab421b8b4e0d/dees-l1-6-estimation1.jpg)
