phonological requirements. Such analyses may be interpreted as supporting OptimalityTheory, with its violable constraints and intermingling of morphology and phonology. 1 ‘Al-kitab’ is a comprehensive study about Standard Arabic that deals with different phonological issues. 2 One reason we use [ RTR ] is
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimalitytheory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. In J.J. McCarthy (ed.), OptimalityTheory in Phonology: A Reader , 3–71. Malden/ MA / Oxford: Blackwell. First published 1993.
Sivan, Daniel. 2000. Internal
Data obtained in a longitudinal study of three Hebrew-acquiring children indicate the existence of a stage in which target words with word-initial simple onsets are produced without an initial onset, while target words with an initial complex onset are produced with a simple onset. This is a case of chain shif, where the output of cluster simplification (w[CCV → w[CV) is the input of onset deletion (w[CV → w[V), but forms derived from cluster simplification do not result in onset deletion (w[CCV → *[V). Assuming the constraint-based framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), the main question to be addressed is how can we account for different outputs for input-simple onsets compared to input-complex onsets during the same stage of phonological development? In addition, given the principles of universal markedness and their role in language acquisition, how can we account for the production of onsetless syllables for targets with onsets? I argue that the underlying motivation for omission is an increase in prosodic complexity, and propose an analysis based on local constraint conjunction (Smolensky 1993) to provide a unified developmental account of simple and complex onsets.
synchronic (§ 2.2) analyses of BH segholates, recapitulating our argument that the synchronic analysis does not comply with universal principles (§ 2.3). We thus propose our alternative analysis in § 3, within the framework of OptimalityTheory ( OT ), where the singular stem is the input from which the
Laura J. Downing & Maarten Mous / Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 3 (2011) 82–110 83 Current work on reduplication in OptimalityTheory (OT)—notably, Downing (2006), McCarthy (2000, 2002), McCarthy & Prince (1993, 1994a,b, 1995, 1999), Urbanczyk (1996, 2006)—argues
great extent which MH basic entries are formed in CiCeC and which ones are formed in hiCCiC (Bolozky 1978, 1999). I view the interaction among the criteria in the spirit of OptimalityTheory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), which accounts for variation in terms of different rankings of competing
based on the restrictive foot typology of Kager (1993) and optimalitytheory as presented in Prince and Smolensky (1993). Part of this approach is representing different levels of constituency in the line. The lowest level is the ‘metrical position’. The sequence of metrical positions is then structured
Khan, Geoffrey. 2020. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew . 2 volumes. Semitic Languages and Cultures 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. “Syllables and Moras in Arabic.” In The Syllable in OptimalityTheory , edited
-formedness in terms of constraints as used in the framework of OptimalityTheory (OT), though I put forth the constraints as tentative and made no attempt to produce a full-ﬂedged OT analysis with constraint rankings. Here, I will formulate constraints informally as descriptive generalizations about how text
Los Angeles, University of South California. Bat-El, Outi. 2003. The Fate of the Consonantal Root and the Binyan in OptimalityTheory. Recherches de Linguistique de Vincennes 32: 31–60. Ben-Hayyim, Ze " ev. 2 2007. Hebrew Grammar: Morphology: Noun Formation. In Encyclopaedia Judaica , vol. 8, ed