Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

Juliet Stanton

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1-39
    Number of pages39
    JournalJournal of Linguistics
    DOIs
    StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

    Fingerprint

    ability
    typology
    candidacy
    Dissimilation
    Nasal
    Trigger
    Universality

    Keywords

    • dissimilation
    • nasal-stop clusters
    • non-myopia
    • phonology
    • spreading

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Language and Linguistics
    • Philosophy
    • Linguistics and Language

    Cite this

    Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion. / Stanton, Juliet.

    In: Journal of Linguistics, 01.01.2018, p. 1-39.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{17a91ca8c465471ba916b2f4e9c86e71,
    title = "Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion",
    abstract = "Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.",
    keywords = "dissimilation, nasal-stop clusters, non-myopia, phonology, spreading",
    author = "Juliet Stanton",
    year = "2018",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1017/S0022226718000506",
    language = "English (US)",
    pages = "1--39",
    journal = "Journal of Linguistics",
    issn = "0022-2267",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

    AU - Stanton, Juliet

    PY - 2018/1/1

    Y1 - 2018/1/1

    N2 - Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

    AB - Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

    KW - dissimilation

    KW - nasal-stop clusters

    KW - non-myopia

    KW - phonology

    KW - spreading

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056464284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056464284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0022226718000506

    DO - 10.1017/S0022226718000506

    M3 - Article

    SP - 1

    EP - 39

    JO - Journal of Linguistics

    JF - Journal of Linguistics

    SN - 0022-2267

    ER -