Comparative markedness and derived environments
-
Joan Mascaró
Abstract
McCarthy's paper contains a simple idea with important consequences. The simple idea is that markedness constraints come in two brands, OM and NM. Whereas a “classic” markedness constraint *M bans the structure M, OM does so only if M is present in the input and NM only if M is not present in the input. The idea is simple but the array of consequences that it entails is by no means simple. It can be implemented in different ways; some of the implementation problems are discussed by the author, others are left for the future. As for the consequences, some are theoretical (relations to local constraint conjunction, sympathy, stratal OT) others empirical. The latter involve new predictions (grandfather effects) and older empirical domains, like counter-feeding opacity and derived environment effects (DEE). In this reaction to McCarthy's paper I will concentrate on the latter.
© Walter de Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Comparative markedness
- Some real and not-so real consequences of comparative markedness
- Comparative markedness and containment
- Comparative markedness and identity effects in reduplication
- Counterfeeding, derived environment effects, and comparative markedness
- Local conjunction and comparative markedness
- Comparative markedness and derived environments
- Looking through opacity
- What does comparative markedness explain, what should it explain, and how?
Articles in the same Issue
- Comparative markedness
- Some real and not-so real consequences of comparative markedness
- Comparative markedness and containment
- Comparative markedness and identity effects in reduplication
- Counterfeeding, derived environment effects, and comparative markedness
- Local conjunction and comparative markedness
- Comparative markedness and derived environments
- Looking through opacity
- What does comparative markedness explain, what should it explain, and how?
