No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A formal typology of process interactions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
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.
Some phonologically significant generalizations result from processes, often formalized as rewrite rules, while others result from interactions among independently motivated processes, often formalized in terms of serial ordering. We adopt these general formalizations of processes and interactions to address two questions. One is the interaction question: what are all the possible forms of interaction between two processes? The other is the opacity question: what makes an interaction between two processes opaque? We show that these questions are best addressed with a rigorous algebraic formalization of processes and their pairwise interactions, describing the complete formal typology of process interactions and identifying the formal properties of those interactions that lead to different types of opacity.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
Published by the Linguistic Society of America with permission of the authors under a CC BY 3.0 license.- Copyright
- Copyright © 2024 Eric Baković & Lev Blumenfeld
Footnotes
*
We thank Matt Gordon and two anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions that have significantly improved both the form and the substance of this paper. Any and all remaining errors are ours. The first author acknowledges support from NSF BCS Award #2021149.
References
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32. 239–389.10.1017/S0022226700015899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Mozainy, H. Q. 1981. Vowel alternations in a Bedouin Hijazi Arabic dialect: Abstractness and stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 1999. Head dependence in stress-epenthesis interactions. In Hermans, Ben & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.), The derivational residue in Optimality Theory, 29–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersson, Samuel. 2020. I'm sorry but time travel isn't real: Against counterfeeding from the past. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 26(1). 2. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol26/iss1/2.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2005. Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22. 279–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675705000631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24. 217–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675707001194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2011. Opacity and ordering. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 40–67. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9781444343069.ch2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2013. Blocking and complementarity in phonological theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric & Blumenfeld, Lev. 2016a. Compound relations between phonological maps. Invited talk, 9th North American Phonology Conference, Concordia University.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric & Blumenfeld, Lev. 2016b. Compound relations between phonological maps: Ambivalence and reciprocity. Unpublished manuscript, UC San Diego and Carleton University.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric & Blumenfeld, Lev. 2018. Overapplication conversion. In Bennett, Ryan, Angeles, Andrew, Brasoveanu, Adrian, Buckley, Dhyana, Kalivoda, Nick, Kawahara, Shigeto, McGuire, Grant & Padgett, Jaye (eds.), Hana-bana: A Festschrift for Junko Ito and Armin Mester, Santa Cruz, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz. https://itomestercelebration.sites.ucsc.edu/.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric & Blumenfeld, Lev. 2019. Rule interaction conversion operations. Loquens 6(2). e062. https://doi.org/10.3989/loquens.2019.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric, Blumenfeld, Lev, Heinz, Jeff & Riggle, Jason. 2016. Decomposing complex relations between phonological maps. Talk presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina. 1978. Phonological rules in the nominative singular and genitive plural of the Slavic substantive declension. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok Language (University of California Publications in Linguistics). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 2000. Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking and correspondence. In Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der & van, Jeroen Weijer, de (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, 47–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238430.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 2011. Derived environment effects. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Beth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0088.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2002. Virtual phonology: Rule sandwiching and multiple opacity in North Saami. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2011. Derivations. In Kula, Nancy C., Botma, Bert & Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.), Continuum companion to phonology, 135–173. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane. 2021. Nonderived environment blocking and input-oriented computation. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3. 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00031.cha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1967. Some general properties of phonological rules. Language 43. 102–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/411387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example. In Sebeok, Thomas (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, 401–458. The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111418797-018.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18 (1-3). 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James. 2015. Saltation and the P-map. Phonology 32 (2). 267–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, Johannes, Murphy, Andrew & Zaleska, Joanna. 2014. Rule flipping and the feeding-bleeding relationship. In Assmann, Anke, Bank, Sebastian, Georgi, Doreen, Klein, Timo, Weisser, Philipp & Zimmermann, Eva (eds.), Topics at InfL, vol. 92 Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 1–32. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. 1995. Rule ordering. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 609–614. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Joshi, S. D. & Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Siddha and asiddha in Paninian phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 223–250. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, S. D. & Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. The extended siddha-principle. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 86. 1–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41692378.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya & Staroverov, Peter. 2010. When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: the paradox of fed counterfeeding. Phonology 27. 255–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675710000126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1994. Morphological alignment and head projection: Toward a nonderivational account of epenthesis and exceptional stress in Dakota. Phonology at Santa Cruz 3. 47–64.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–202. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111666242.13.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576–642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973a. How abstract is phonology? In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 5–56. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973b. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 57–86. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973c. “Elsewhere” in phonology. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in nonderived environments. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.), Studies in Lexical Phonology, vol. 4 Phonetics and Phonology, 277–313. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50016-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Capturing phonological shades within and across languages, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Library.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C. 2008. Derived environment effects: A representational approach. Lingua 118. 1328–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Minkyung. 1999. A case of sympathy in Javanese affixation. In Baertsch, Karen & Dinnsen, Daniel A. (eds.), Optimal green ideas in phonology, 31–36. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, Minkyung. 2007. OT-CC and feeding opacity in Javanese. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 13(2). 333–350.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00043-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, Joan. 2011. Rule ordering. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Beth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1736–1760. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0074.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16 (3). 331–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675799003784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Sympathy, cumulativity and the Duke-of-York gambit. In Féry, Caroline & van, Ruben Vijver, de (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 23–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511497926.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007a. Derivations and levels of representation. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 99–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486371.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007b. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Meinhardt, Eric M., Mai, Anna, Baković, Eric & McCollum, Adam G. 2024. Weak determinism and the computational consequences of interaction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09578-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Smolensky, Paul. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 21. 306–319.Google Scholar
Norton, Russell James. 2003. Derivational phonology and optimality phonology: Formal comparison and synthesis. Colchester, UK: University of Essex dissertation. ROA-613, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. Model theory and the content of OT constraints. Phonology 19. 361–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675703004408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prillop, Kulli. 2018. Interacting processes in phonological theory. Phonology 35 (3). 441–479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267571800012X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, Kathryn. 2023. Serialism and opacity in phonological theory. Annual Review of Linguistics 9. 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1976. The Duke of York gambit. Journal of Linguistics 12 (1). 83–102. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4175335.10.1017/S0022226700004813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasin, Ezer. 2016. A rule-ordering theory of blocking in nonderived environments. In Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur, Farris-Trimble, Ashley, McMullin, Kevin & Pulleybank, Douglas (eds.), Supplemental proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Phonology 2015, Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3689.Google Scholar
Rasin, Ezer. 2022. Shifting interactions and countershifting opacity: A note on opacity in Harmonic Serialism. Linguistic Inquiry. 53 (4). 836–851. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783111392837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Swadesh, Morris. 1978. Nootka texts: Tales and ethnological narratives, with grammatical notes and lexical material. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Sayeed, Ollie. 2016. Phonological time travel: ‘Counterfeeding from the future’. Talk presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of York.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia. 1980. Theoretical issues in Dakota phonology and morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia. 1985. Modularisation and substantive constraints in Dakota lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 173–202. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4419956.10.1017/S0952675700000427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2022. Some formal implication of deletion saltation. Linguistic Inquiry. 53 (4). 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Ronald. 1997. A case for enriched inputs. ROA-193, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1986. Yokuts and the vowel plane. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (1). 129–146. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178478.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce. 2014. Output-driven phonology: Theory and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald Norman & Tompo, John Mpaayei, Ole. 1955. A Maasai grammar, with vocabulary. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Watson, Janet C. E. 2011. Word stress in Arabic. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, chap. 135, 2990–3018. London: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0124.Google Scholar
White, James. 2013. Bias in phonological learning: Evidence from saltation. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
White, James. 2014. Evidence for a learning bias against saltatory phonological alternations. Cognition 130 (1). 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, James. 2017. Accounting for the learnability of saltation in phonological theory: A maximum entropy model with a P-map bias. Language 93. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2011. Limits on global rules in Optimality Theory with candidate chains. Phonology 28. 87–128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303155.10.1017/S0952675711000042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1987. Rule interactions: Another gloss on K&K. In Innovations in Linguistics Education, vol. 5, 91–111.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access
- 3
- Cited by