Article published in:Perspectives on Phonological Theory and Development: In honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen
Edited by Ashley W. Farris-Trimble and Jessica A. Barlow
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 56] 2014
► pp. 199–222
A faithfulness conspiracy
The selection of unfaithful mappings in Amahl’s grammar
Children frequently reduce marked target structures to unmarked outputs. However, multiple reduction strategies are often available, and pinpointing a principle that unifies them can be difficult. This paper examines several markedness-reducing processes in Amahl’s developing phonology (Smith 1973), showing that seemingly unrelated repairs actually had a coherent objective: to avoid the accumulation of multiple repairs. This finding is significant on two levels: first, the pattern challenges analyses that rely on ranked constraints, in which violations cannot accumulate across constraints; second, it appears that multiple phonological processes (unfaithful by definition) conspire to preserve faithfulness. This pattern is defined as a faithfulness conspiracy, and the concept is fleshed out with other examples from Amahl’s development as well as cases from fully-developed languages.
Published online: 29 April 2014
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B.
Dinnsen, D.A. & Barlow, J.A.
Dinnsen, D.A., O’Connor, K.M. & Gierut, J.A.
Jesney, K. & Tessier, A-M.
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.
Legendre, G., Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.
McMurray, B., Cole, J.S. & Munson, C.
McMurray, B. & Jongman, A.
Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.
Pater, J. & Barlow, J.
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.