Positional faithfulness theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject |
positional faithfulness theory is a theory within Optimality Theory that states that phonological asymmetries arises from a single pattern of constraint interaction in an Optimality Theoretic grammar (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993a,b), one in which positional faithfulness constraints crucially dominate context-free faithfulness and markedness constraints. The theory brings into Optimality Theory the notion of positional privilege in phonology, a notion which maintains that there is a small inventory of privileged linguistic positions which play a central role in the phonological systems of the world’s languages. Privileged positions (1a) are those positions which enjoy some perceptual advantage in the processing system, via either psycholinguistic or phonetic prominence, over the complement of non-privileged positions (1b).
Privileged positions include Root-initial syllables, Stressed syllables, Syllable onsets, Roots and Long vowels. Non-privileged positions include Non-initial syllables, Unstressed syllables, Syllable codas, Affixes, clitics, function words and Short vowels.
Positions which are psycholinguistically prominent are those which bear the heaviest burden of lexical storage, lexical access and retrieval, and processing: root–initial syllables, roots and, to some degree, final syllables (see Chapter 2 and Steriade 1993c for relevant discussion). By contrast, medial syllables and functional elements such as inflectional affixes, clitics and closed-class items, though important, play a lesser role in the organization of the lexicon. Phonetic prominence may be instantiated by many different physical cues, including increased duration or amplitude, pitch extrema, release bursts, etc. (See Kingston 1985, 1990; Steriade 1993c, 1995 and Kirchner 1996 for recent examinations of perceptual cues and their role in phonology.) Positions of phonetic prominence include stressed syllables, syllable onsets, long vowels and possibly final syllables. Positional privilege is not determined solely on perceptual grounds, however. While there is a functional unity to the class of privileged positions, there is also a phonological unity: positional privilege is manifested in three distinct, but closely related, patterns of phonological asymmetry, these being (1) Phonological asymmetries diagnostic of positional privilege, (2) Positional maintenance of contrasts which are neutralized elsewhere, (3) Positional triggering of phonological processes and (4) Positional resistance to processes which apply elsewhere.
[edit] Proposals within the theory
Lombardi (1999) proposes a set of constraints within the framework of OT that accounts for syllable final laryngeal neutralisation and voicing assimilation in obstruent clusters. The interaction of positional faithfulness and markedness is shown to be a result of the interaction of positional faithfulness with a constraint preferring adjacent obstruent to agree in voicing. Re-rankings of the proposed constraints account for attested patterns of voicing assimilation and neutralisation: unlike previous neutralisation and spread analyses, this approach makes the prediction that it is equally natural for voicing assimilation in clusters to combine to combine with either devoicing of or retention of voicing distinctions in word final consonants. It is argued that the interactions of these constraints account for why voicing assimilation is always regressive unless special circumstances hold.
[edit] References
Beckman, J. N. (1998) Positional Faithfulness. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts.
|
This article is uncategorized.
Please help improve this article by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles (how?). Please remove this tag after categorizing, but not before. |
