Overwriting Does Not Optimize in Nonconcatenative Morphology

Bibliographic Data

ID4318379
AuthorsAndrew Nevins (0000-0001-5318-5596, Harvard University Press, corresponding author), Andrew Ira Nevins (Harvard University)
Year2005
Volume36
Issue2
Pages275-287
Publication date2005-04-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueLinguistic Inquiry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0024-3892 • E-ISSN: 1530-9150
PublisherMIT Press - Journals (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1162/0024389053710693
OpenAlexW2133665143
LanguageEN
Citations received11
References cited7

Overwriting is modeled in Optimality Theory as a competition for a position within the derivational base (Alderete et al. 1999, Ussishkin 1997). Faithfulness constraints that are evaluated on the basis of segment counting predict a typology of languages in which (a) optimization dictates that the relative size of the affixal material determines whether it will win out and "overwrite" the base, and (b) optimization ensures that if both the affix and base material can surface without incurring phonotactic violations, this should be optimal. Both predictions are wrong. Hebrew denominal verb formation and Hindi echo reduplication demonstrate cases of nonconcatenative derivation in which overwriting is better understood as rule-induced change

Affix · Base (topology · Hebrew · Hindi · Linguistics · Morpheme · Natural language processing · Optimality theory · Phonology · Verb · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access