|Title:||The Tunica Stress Conspiracy Revisited|
|Comment:||To appear in Proceedings of AMP 2015|
|Abstract:||Kisseberth (1970b) distinguishes rules in Tunica (Haas 1940) that are subject to a constraint penalizing adjacent stresses from rules that are not subject to this constraint. This distinction appears on the surface to be particularly suited to a straightforward analysis within OT (Prince & Smolensky 1993): No-Clash is ranked above constraints responsible for the rules that are subject to it and below constraints responsible for the rules that are not. The full range of relevant facts in Tunica suggest that No-Clash is only crucially dominated and violated lexically, however; postlexically, No-Clash is undominated and there are no adjacent stresses on the surface. An analysis is within Stratal OT (Bermudez-Otero 1999, Kiparsky 2000) is proposed and defended.
[Minor update, 4/13/2016: two relevant citations (Hammond 1984, Kiparsky 2015) and a brief postscript added.]
|Area/Keywords:||Stratal OT, Tunica, stress, syncope, apocope, vowel deletion|