Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Shahrekord University
Abstract
Phonological opacity has always been the subject of much debate in generative phonology, particularly after the emergence of Optimality Theory (OT). According to Antila (2006) Opacity arises when a phonological process applies even if its conditioning environment is not met on the surface (overapplication), or conversely, fails to apply even if its conditioning environment is met on the surface (underapplication). Counterfeeding and counterbleeding interactions cause opacity. It may also be caused by a feeding interaction. Opacity is a challenge for optimality theory which denies phonological rules and intermediate levels between the underlying representation and the phonetic representation. While rule-based approaches that consider intermediate levels have no problem dealing with opacity. This research aimed at introducing opacity, arguing for the existence of Counterfeeding and counterbleeding interactions in Persian, arguing for the opacity of a feeding interaction in Persian, and finally analyzing these opaque interactions within the frameworks of classic Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993/ 2004) and/ or Harmonic serialism (McCarthy, 2000). In order to identify the phonological processes, the data were carefully analyzed according to various phonological environments. Then, these environments were analyzed to determine the constraints involved in each opaque interaction. In this paper, first, the existence of a counterfeeding interaction in the conversion of the underlying representation /bA# am/ to the phonetic representation [bAm] (not to *[bum]) was discussed. This opaque interaction was analyzed within classic OT using enriched positional faithfulness constraint IDENT(low)/# which causes *[bum] to lose and [bAm] to win. Moreover, the counterbleeding interaction in the occurrence of “nasal place assimilation” between the palatal consonant // and /n/, and the consequent deletion of // (the source of assimilation) was discussed. This opaque interaction was analyzed within the framework of Harmonic Serialism by formalizing the markedness constraint Cσ*NP]. Finally, it was argued that the conversion of the underlying /-id/ to [-in] is due to the insertion of [n] between /i/ and /d/, and the consequent deletion of /d/. After arguing why this feeding interaction is considered opaque, it was analyzed within the framework of Harmonic Serialism by formalizing two markedness constraints *idCL and*nd].
Anttila, A. (2006). “Variation and opacity”. NLLT. Vol.24. Pp. 893–944.
Baković, E. (2000). Harmony, Dominance and Control. PhD. Dissertation. Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ.
Baković, E. (2004). “Partial Identity and Cooperative Interaction”. WECOL 2004 and ROA-698. Retrieved October 1, 2017 form the World Wide Web: http://roa.rutgers.edu/.
Baković, E. (2007). “A Revised typology of opaque generalizations”. Phonology. Vol. 24. Pp. 217–259.
Baković, E. (2011). “Opacity and Ordering”. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.). The handbook of phonological theory (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
Benua, L. (1995). “Identity effects in morphological truncation”. In J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.). Papers in Optimality Theory (Pp. 77-136). University of Massachusetts. Occasional Papers 18, GLSA. University of Masssachusetts: Amherst.
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (1999). Constraint Interaction in LanguageChange [Opacity and Globality in Phonological Change]. PhD. Dissertation, University of Manchester / Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
Bijankhan, M. (2005). Phonology: Optimality Theory. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Carr, P. (1993). Phonology. The MacMillan Press LTD.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968), The Sound Pattern of English. NewYork: Harper & Row.
Chomsky, N.(1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N.(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ettlinger, M. (2008). Input-Driven Opacity. PhD Dissertation. University of California. Berkeley.
Goldrick, M. )2000). “Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity”. In M. Hirotani; A. Coetzee; N. Hall & J.-Y. Kim (Eds.). Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (pp. 231- 245). Vol. I. GLSA. Massachusetts: Amherst.
Green, A. D. (2004). “Opacity in Tiberian Hebrew: morphology, not phonology”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Pp. 37– 70.
Idsardi, W. J. (2000). “Clarifying opacity”. The Linguistic Review. Vol. 17.Pp. 337–350.
Jam, B. & M. Teymouri (2014), An Optimality–Theoretic Account of Changing /A/ to [a:] or [o] in Ferdows Persian Accent.Linguistics and Khorasan Dielects. Vol. 10: 121-142. [In Persian].
Jam, B. (2015). “Comparing The Pronunciation of Third Person Singular Ending in Standard Colloquial and Esfahani Persian within Optimality Theory”. Language Related Research. Vol. 6 (7), (pp. 73-90) [In Persian]. Jam, B. (2009). Optimality Theory and Its Application in Explaining Phonological Processes of Persian. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Tehran: Tarbiat Modarres University. [In Persian].
Jensen, J. T. (2004). Principles Of Generative Phonology: An Introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalbasi, I. (1992). The Derivational Structure of Words in Today’s Persian. Tehran: Pajouheshgah [In Persian].
Kiparsky, P. (1973). “Phonological representations”. In Osamu Fujimura (Ed.). Three Dimensions ofLinguistic Theory (Pp. 1-136). Tokyo: TEC Company.
Kiparsky, P. (2000). “Opacity and cyclicity”. The Linguistic Review. Vol. 17. Pp. 351-366.
Lubowicz, A. (2003). “Counter-feeding opacity as a chain shift effect”. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.). Proceedings of the 22 West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Pp. 315-327). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1995), “Faithfulness and reduplicative identity”. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbancyzk (Eds.). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (Pp. 149–348). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
McCarthy, J. (1999). “Sympathy and phonological opacity”. Phonology. Vol. 16. Pp. 331-399.
McCarthy, J. (2000). “Harmonic serialism and parallelism”. In M. Hirotani (Ed.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 30 (Pp. 501-524). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
McCarthy, J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. (2003). “Comparative markedness”. Theoretical Linguistics. Vol.29. Pp. 1-51.
McCarthy, J. (2007). Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.
McCarthy, J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
McMahon, A. (2000). Change, Chance, and Optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O'Connor, R. (2002). The Placement of Enclitics in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Ms.: University of Manchester.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky (2004), Optimality Theory:Constrain Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Sanders, N. (2003). Opacity and Sound Change in the Polish Lexicon.PhD. Dissertation in Linguistics, UCSC.
Shaghaghi, V. (2008). An Introduction to Morphology. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Sprouse, R. (1997). A Case for Enriched Inputs. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Ms.
Urek, O. (2013). “Overapplication opacity in phonological acquisition”. Nordlyd. [Online] Vol. 40. Pp. 1.
Wheeler, M. W. (2005). “Cluster reduction or coalescence? In J. Jimenez and M. R. Lloret (Eds.). Catalan Journal of Linguistics ,Special Issue on Morphology in Phonolgy (Pp. 57-82). Vol. 4.
Wilson, C. (2001). “Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints. Phonology. Vol.18. Pp. 147-197.
Language Related Research
