Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:46:59.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ABP and ABC: Agreement with/out correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Natalie DelBusso and
Willliam G. Bennett
Natalie DelBusso*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick NJ 08901
Willliam G. Bennett*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Linguistics, Artillery Road, Rhodes University, Makhanda, 6140, South Africa
*
n.delbusso@rutgers.edu
w.bennett@ru.ac.za
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The same linguistic data can often be analyzed in multiple ways, using different theoretical assumptions. Systematic comparison of the competing analyses requires understanding how the theories give rise to them, and the consequences and predictions implied by each set of assumptions. In this paper, we compare two theories of segmental harmony: Agreement-by-Correspondence (ABC) (Rose & Walker 2004; Hansson 2010; Bennett 2015), and Agreement-by-Projection (ABP) (Hansson 2014). We analyze typologies in each through Property Theory (Alber, DelBusso & Prince 2016; Alber & Prince 2016, in prep.). Typological analysis shows the strong parallelism between the different proposals at both the extensional and intensional levels. Not only do both theories predict the same set of surface distinct languages, but these follow from a similar internal structure. We show how the ABP proposal formally combines two ABC constraints, collapsing the ABC typology along the correspondence/non- correspondence dimension.

Keywords

Agreement-by-CorrespondenceProperty Theorytypologiesharmonydissimilation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonological Data and Analysis , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , 2019, pp. 1 - 25
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Published by the Linguistic Society of America with permission of the authors under a CC BY 3.0 license.
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Natalie DelBusso & William G. Bennett.

Footnotes

*

We thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on previous drafts, as well as Gunnar Hansson, Darin Flynn and audiences at OCP 2019 for discussion of the ideas herein.

References

Alber, Birgit, 2017. The book of BTT. Rutgers Optimality Archive 1327. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1703.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Prince, Alan. 2016. Outline of property theory. Ms. University of Verona, Italy & Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Prince, Alan. 2017. The book of nGX. Rutgers Optimality Archive 1312. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1663.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Prince, Alan. In prep. Typologies. Ms. University of Verona, Italy & Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit, DelBusso, Natalie & Prince, Alan. 2016. From intensional properties to universal support. Language 92 (2). e88–ell6. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance and control. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Bennett, William. G. 2015. The phonology of consonants: Harmony, dissimilation and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William G. & DelBusso, Natalie. 2018a. Typological effects of ABC constraint definitions. Phonology 35 (1). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675717000367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William G. &Natalie DelBusso. 2018b. ABC(D) Book. SOTA. Rutgers Optimality Archive. 1355. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1783.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G., DelBusso, Natalie & Iacoponi, Luca. 2016. Formally mapping the typologies of interacting ABCD systems. In In Ólafiir, Gunnar, Farris-Trimble, Ashley, McMullin, Kevin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (eds.), Supplemental proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP) 2015. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3697.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DelBusso, Natalie. 2018. Typological structure and properties of Property Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian and Coon, Jessica. 2009. Distinguishing total and partial identity: Evidence from Chol. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27. 545–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl1049-009-9075-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant harmony: Long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2014. (Dis)agreement by (non)correspondence: Inspecting the foundations. Presented at the ABC↔Conference, UC Berkeley, May 18-19, 2014. UC Berkeley Phonology: Lab annual report, 3–62. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2014/ABCC/Hansson.pdf.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffery, Rawal, Chetan & Tanner, Herbert G., 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technologies: Short papers - Volume 2, 58–64. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jensen, John. 1974. A constraint on variables in phonology. Language 50. 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, John & Strong-Jensen, Margaret. 1979. The relevancy condition and variables in phonology. Linguistic Analysis 5. 125–160.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter. 2011. Feature spreading 2.0: A unified theory of assimilation. Tromso, Norway: University of Tromso dissertation.Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian. 2017. A theory of subfeatural representations: The case of rounding harmony in Laal. Phonology 34 (3). 523–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675717000276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17. 267–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006182130229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43. 84–108.10.1159/000261820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2010. Agreement by correspondence without CORR constraints. Rutgers Optimality Archive 1089. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1119.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP) 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. 249–384. https://works.bepress.com/john_J_mccarthy/44/.Google Scholar
McManus, Hope. 2016. Stress parallels in modem OT. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Merchant, Nazarré & Prince, Alan. To appear. The mother of all tableaux (Advances in Optimality Theory). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin. 1988. Dependent tier ordering and the OCP. In van, Harry Hulst, der & Smith, Norval (eds.), Features, segmental structure, and harmony processes, 127–144. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2016. One tableau suffices. Rutgers Optimality Archive 1250. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1453.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, Nazarré, Merchant & Tesar, Bruce. 2007-2018. OTWorkplace. Software package. https://sites.google.com/site/otworkplace/.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2002. Harmony drivers: No disagreement allowed. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 28. 249–267. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28il.3841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80 (3). 475–531. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, E. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Rutgers Optimality Archive 87. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/88.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Locality conditions and feature geometry. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 18. 595–617.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2000. Long-distance consonantal identity effects. In Billerey, Roger & Lillehaugen, Brook (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). 532–545. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2016. Surface correspondence and discrete harmony triggers. In Albright, Adam & Fullwood, Michelle (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP) 2014. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v2i0.3744.Google Scholar