| ROA: | 105 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Why Place and Voice are different: constraint interactions and feature faithfulness in Optimality Theory |
| Authors: | Linda Lombardi |
| Comment: | Revised version appeared in Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations, ed. by Linda Lombardi, Cambridge University Press, 2001. |
| Length: | 35 |
| Abstract: | In this paper, I will examine differences in the phonological alternations affecting Place and Voice in coda position. Both types of features are often restricted in the coda, but the types of phonological alternations triggered by the restriction differ. Voice is often neutralized, while Place very rarely is; epenthesis and deletion can be used to satisfy the coda constraint on Place (Ito 1986), but a restriction on coda Voice never triggers such processes. I will argue that in order to account for these differences within Optimality Theory, we must recognize these three points: 1. Although both types of features are subject to position-independent markedness constraints like *Voice and *Dor, only Place is subject to a positional markedness constraint, CodaCond. 2. There are consonants that are not marked with any Laryngeal specification, but none that are truly Placeless. 3. It is necessary to recognize the existence of MaxF constraints that ensure realization of input features. Featural faithfulness cannot be confined to the Ident constraints of McCarthy and Prince (1995), which only ensure that correspondent segments agree in features, but do not force faithfulness to the features themselves independent of segments. |
| Type: | Paper/tech report |
| Area/Keywords: | Phonology |
| Article: | Version 1 |