FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767352568> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767352568 abstract "UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2012) Vowel Harmony as Agreement by Correspondence Russell Rhodes UC Berkeley Introduction Initially, it was believed that blocking effects 1 simply could not be modeled with Agreement by Correspondence (ABC) (Hansson 2001; Rose & Walker 2004). Hansson, in particular, lays out this assumption very clearly: “Intervening segments do not themselves enter into the agreement relation holding between the trigger-target pair, and therefore they must be irrelevant to that relation: they cannot be opaque” (237, his emphasis). The model’s assumed inability to account for opaque segments was seen as a positive with respect to accounting for consonant harmony 2 because blocking effects are extremely rare in consonant harmony systems 3 . However, since opaque segments are common in vowel harmony systems, it was unclear how applicable ABC would be to vowel harmony. In spite of this, Rose & Walker are optimistic about the possibility of analyzing at least some vowel harmony systems as ABC: Vowel harmony presents a promising area in which to explore further applications of the ABC approach . . . [C]ertain cases of rounding harmony limit the participant segments to ones that are similar, specifically, they match in height. In addition, many patterns of vowel harmony show nonlocal interactions across intervening transparent vowels, sug- gesting that ABC might be at work . . . The suitability of an ABC approach for such patterns would need to be assessed in the context of individual case studies. (520) The current paper, presents two such case studies in an effort to assess the suitability of the ABC approach, not just for these two systems, but for vowel harmony more generally. After an introduction to ABC and a review of the history of blocking and ABC in §2, §3 contains the case study of Khalkha Mongolian rounding harmony. Khalkha offers a particularly good test case because it is exactly the type of system that Rose & Walker suggest could be analyzed as ABC. Rounding harmony is restricted to vowels agreeing in height and shows nonlocal interactions across intervening transparent vowels. Additionally, Khalkha presents a challenge because it involves a When I say blocking effects, I am referring to any situation where the presence of a segment between a trigger of harmony and a potential target of harmony prevents that potential target from agreeing with the trigger for the harmony feature. I will be using the term opacity interchangeably with blocking effects and I will refer to the segment that blocks harmony as an opaque segment. Consonant harmony is also sometimes referred to as Long Distance Consonant Agreement. There are only two attested cases of blocking in consonant harmony systems: Ineseno Chumash sibilant harmony (Poser 1982; Applegate 1972) and Kinyarwanda coronal harmony (Walker & Mpiranya 2006). Though, it is worth noting that, although Hansson (2001:Ch. 5) demonstrated that the blocking in Chumash sibilant harmony can be accounted for using ABC augmented with targeted constraints (Wilson 2000, 2001), the case of Kinyarwanda coronal harmony is more problematic for ABC. In fact, Walker & Mpiranya (2006) analyze the harmony not as ABC, but as featural spreading." @default.
• W2767352568 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767352568 creator A5085842484 @default.
• W2767352568 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2767352568 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2767352568 title "Vowel Harmony as Agreement by Correspondence" @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1486205878 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1512129346 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1547092078 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1562911371 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1575528222 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W171744796 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1717909984 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W1984092870 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2008657350 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2029450805 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2066122504 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2072950632 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2107155307 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2136021561 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2163351832 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W2178312649 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W248837177 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W300893532 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W3196987299 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W594165198 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W605031777 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W77017790 @default.
• W2767352568 cites W797491132 @default.
• W2767352568 doi "https://doi.org/10.5070/p79ns2k90j" @default.
• W2767352568 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2767352568 type Work @default.
• W2767352568 sameAs 2767352568 @default.
• W2767352568 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682013 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682014 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682016 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682017 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682018 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682020 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682021 @default.
• W2767352568 countsByYear W27673525682022 @default.
• W2767352568 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2767352568 hasAuthorship W2767352568A5085842484 @default.
• W2767352568 hasBestOaLocation W27673525681 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C2776453491 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C2776818064 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C2779581591 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C2781280609 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C28490314 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C120665830 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C121332964 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C138885662 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C15744967 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C2776453491 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C2776818064 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C2779581591 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C2781280609 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C28490314 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C41008148 @default.
• W2767352568 hasConceptScore W2767352568C41895202 @default.
• W2767352568 hasLocation W27673525681 @default.
• W2767352568 hasOpenAccess W2767352568 @default.
• W2767352568 hasPrimaryLocation W27673525681 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W1587216403 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W1973512600 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2108375277 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2230531082 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2235270333 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2488356755 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2596267269 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2792717996 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W4312807119 @default.
• W2767352568 hasRelatedWork W2187200467 @default.
• W2767352568 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W2767352568 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2767352568 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2767352568 magId "2767352568" @default.
• W2767352568 workType "article" @default.