Publication: Overwriting Does Not Optimize in Nonconcatenative Word Formation
Open/View Files
Date
2005
Authors
Published Version
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.
Citation
Nevins, Andrew I. 2005. Overwriting does not optimize in nonconcatenative word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 275–287.
Research Data
Abstract
Overwriting is modeled in Optimality Theory as a competition for a position within the derivational base (Alderete et al. 1999, Ussishkin 1997). Faithfulness constraints that are evaluated on the basis of segment counting predict a typology of languages in which (a) optimization dictates that the relative size of the affixal material determines whether it will win out and “overwrite” the base, and (b) optimization ensures that if both the affix and base material can surface without incurring phonotactic violations, this should be optimal. Both predictions are wrong. Hebrew denominal verb formation and Hindi echo reduplication demonstrate cases of nonconcatenative derivation in which overwriting is better understood as rule-induced change.
Description
Other Available Sources
Keywords
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service