Advertisement

Why Lenition Interactions Are Typically Counter-Feeding

  • Haike JacobsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 95)

Abstract

Typologically, the interaction between voicing and spirantization processes applies predominantly in a counter-feeding fashion, and, more rarely in a feeding one. After providing some relevant data from contemporary Romance varieties that illustrate this state of affairs, this paper first discusses why this is problematic for previous theoretical analyses, both from a rule-based and from a constraint-based perspective of phonology. A novel way of evaluating constraints will be proposed which locally evaluates only output candidates that have undergone one single change to satisfy the relevant markedness constraint at hand. On the one hand, this allows to describe both types of interaction (feeding and counter-feeding) which thus far was quite problematic for OT. On the other hand, we will illustrate that, in perception, this makes a feeding interaction computationally more complicated than a counter-feeding one, which is, we claim, the reason for the typological unmarkedness of the counter-feeding interaction between voicing and spirantization.

Keywords

Counter-feeding opacity Contrast maintenance Serial optimality theory Local constraint evaluation Perception of voicing and spirantization Harmonic Serialism Optimality theory with candidate chains 

References

  1. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  3. Brandão de Carvalho, Joaquim. 2008. Western Romance. In Lenition and fortition, ed. Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer, and Philippe Ségéral, 207–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Broś, Karolina. 2016. Between phonology and morphosyntax: Voicing and spirantization in the Spanish of Gran Canaria. In Phonology, its faces and interfaces, ed. Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska and Eugeniusz Cyran, 173–200. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Calabrese, A. 2010. Perception, production and acoustic inputs in loanword phonology. In Loan phonology, ed. Andrea Calabrese and Leo Wetzels, 59–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Cravens, Thomas. 2000. Romance lenition. In New approaches to old problems: Issues in Romance historical linguistics, ed. Steven Dworkin and Dieter Wanner, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Gurevich, Naomi. 2004. Lenition and contrast. The functional consequences of certain phonetically motivated sound changes. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Haike Jacobs. 2017. Understanding phonology. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jacobs, Haike. 2016. Serial OT and segmental opacity. In Spotlight on melody and structure in syntax and phonology, ed. Anna Bloch-Rozmej, Anna Bondaruk, and Anna Pramożwska, 233–256. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, Haike, and Leo Wetzels. 1988. Early French lenition: A formal account of an integrated sound change. In Features, segmental structure and harmony processes I, ed. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 105–129. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Kaye, Jonathan. 1975. A functional explanation of rule ordering in phonology. Parasession on Functionalism CLS: 244–252.Google Scholar
  13. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. Kirchner, Robert. 2001. An effort based approach to consonant lenition. New York/London: Garland.Google Scholar
  15. Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, John. 2007. Hidden generalizations. Phonological opacity in optimality theory. Equinox.Google Scholar
  17. McCarthy, John. 2010. Harmonic Serialism supplement to doing optimality theory. http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/108.
  18. Mohanan, K.P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. In The last phonological rule, ed. John Goldsmith, 61–116. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Molinu, Lucia. 1992. Gli esiti fonosintattici del dialetto di Buddusó. L’Italia Dialettale 15: 123–153.Google Scholar
  20. Oftedal, Magne. 1985. Lenition in Celtic and in Insular Spanish: The secondary voicing of stops in Gran Canaria. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  21. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993 [2004]. Optimality theory. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages. A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 271–317.Google Scholar
  23. Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant values. Papers from the twenty-third regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 2, 339–362.Google Scholar
  24. Virdis, Maurizio. 1978. Fonetica del dialetto sardo campidanese. Cagliari: Edizione della Torre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Language StudiesRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations