Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNevins, Andrew Ira
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-16T21:42:33Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationNevins, Andrew I. 2005. Overwriting does not optimize in nonconcatenative word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 275–287.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0024-3892en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3445090
dc.description.abstractOverwriting 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipLinguisticsen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technology Pressen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1162/0024389053710693en_US
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nevins/nevins05-li.pdfen_US
dash.licenseLAA
dc.titleOverwriting Does Not Optimize in Nonconcatenative Word Formationen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalLinguistic Inquiryen_US
dash.depositing.authorNevins, Andrew Ira
dc.date.available2009-12-16T21:42:33Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1162/0024389053710693*
dash.contributor.affiliatedNevins, Andrew


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record