Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBaker, Adam
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-31T15:17:33Z
dc.date.available2011-03-31T15:17:33Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/126626
dc.description.abstractParallel Lexical Optimality Theory (PLOT) is a model I propose to account for opacity and related phenomena in Optimality Theory. PLOT recognizes three input interfaces and three output interfaces to the grammar. Interfaces are related to each other by constituency and by correspondence (McCarthy & Prince 1995). PLOT’s architecture provides sufficient power to account for opacity, but is not overly powerful, I argue. Additionally, PLOT interfaces neatly with Comparative Markedness (McCarthy 2002b) to explain the co-occurrence of derived environment effects and counterfeeding opacity. PLOT also makes more limited typological predictions than LPM-OT (Kiparsky 2003), on which PLOT is based, since PLOT recognizes only one markedness hierarchy for the grammar.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author(s).en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en_US
dc.titleParallel lexical optimality theoryen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papersen_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials.en_US
dc.source.journaltitleCoyote Papers
refterms.dateFOA2018-07-18T00:12:47Z
html.description.abstractParallel Lexical Optimality Theory (PLOT) is a model I propose to account for opacity and related phenomena in Optimality Theory. PLOT recognizes three input interfaces and three output interfaces to the grammar. Interfaces are related to each other by constituency and by correspondence (McCarthy & Prince 1995). PLOT’s architecture provides sufficient power to account for opacity, but is not overly powerful, I argue. Additionally, PLOT interfaces neatly with Comparative Markedness (McCarthy 2002b) to explain the co-occurrence of derived environment effects and counterfeeding opacity. PLOT also makes more limited typological predictions than LPM-OT (Kiparsky 2003), on which PLOT is based, since PLOT recognizes only one markedness hierarchy for the grammar.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_alc_cp_n14_1_36_w.pdf
Size:
281.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record