search

syntax-prosody-ot / main

A webapp for the syntax-prosody analyst working in Optimality Theory, with automated Gen, Con and Eval. Download build files from syntax-prosody-ot/build
https://spot.sites.ucsc.edu/
GNU General Public License v2.0
12 stars 2 forks source link

Wording of accentAsHead definition #472

Closed nkalivoda closed 3 years ago

nkalivoda commented 3 years ago

The accentAsHead function is correctly defined. This issue is just about how we word the definition.

We currently say in the info:

Every accent is the head of a minimal φ. Assign a violation for every accented word (A) that is not the sole accented word in its minimal φ (Ito & Mester 2013).

This is not a direct quote from Ito & Mester, who say (p. 30):

Every accent is the head of a φ[+min]. Assign one violation for each accent that is not the head of a minimal phonological phrase φ.

Our definition strikes me as misleading when it comes to things like (₁ A (₂ U)), which violate the constraint, because on one reading the "minimal φ" of A is φ₁. What we want to say is that A has to be the sole A in a φ[+minimal]. Would it make sense to adopt the following wording:

Every accent is the head of a minimal φ. Assign a violation for every accented word (A) that is not the sole accented word in some minimal φ (Ito & Mester 2013).

A very minor proposal, but I didn't want to make the change unilaterally.

jbellik commented 3 years ago

That change sounds fine to me.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM Nick Kalivoda notifications@github.com wrote:

The accentAsHead function is correctly defined. This issue is just about how we word the definition.

We currently say in the info:

Every accent is the head of a minimal φ. Assign a violation for every accented word (A) that is not the sole accented word in its minimal φ (Ito & Mester 2013).

This is not a direct quote from Ito & Mester, who say (p. 30):

Every accent is the head of a φ[+min]. Assign one violation for each accent that is not the head of a minimal phonological phrase φ.

Our definition strikes me as misleading when it comes to things like (₁ A (₂ U)), which violate the constraint, because on one reading the "minimal φ" of A is φ₁. What we want to say is that A has to be the sole A in a φ[+minimal]. Would it make sense to adopt the following wording:

Every accent is the head of a minimal φ. Assign a violation for every accented word (A) that is not the sole accented word in some minimal φ (Ito & Mester 2013).

A very minor proposal, but I didn't want to make the change unilaterally.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/syntax-prosody-ot/main/issues/472, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC7ROKREXCLT6RUCQLYHHX3SHOM4ZANCNFSM4RYV7M4Q .

--

-- Jennifer Bellik, PhD Post-doctoral researcher & lecturer UC Santa Cruz https://people.ucsc.edu/~jbellik/