Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Phonological Theory and Development: In honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen
Edited by Ashley W. Farris-Trimble and Jessica A. Barlow
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 56] 2014
► pp. 223–248

Superadditivity and limitations on syllable complexity in Bambara words

| University of Maryland – CASL and Indiana University
| University of Maryland – CASL and Indiana University
This paper explores superadditivity effects in natural language by considering three interrelated phenomena in Colloquial Bambara (CB). The premise of superadditivity is that although marked structures are accommodated in a system, particular structures cannot co-occur in a given domain. This arises because the simultaneous, additive violation of constraints within a domain arguably incurs an additional penalty. Thus, languages may limit the number of phonologically complex structures in a domain. We consider superadditivity in CB, which places strict limitations on the type and distribution of complex syllables within a word. We also discuss these data as they relate to models of phonological acquisition which maintain that outright bans on multiple complex structures do not occur in adult language yet are frequently encountered in developing languages.
Published online: 29 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.56.17gre
References
Albright, A.
2008 A universally gradient co-occurrence restriction? Paper presented at the 16th Manchester Phonology Meeting.
2009 Cumulative violations and complexity threshold: Evidence from Lakhota. Paper presented at the 17th Manchester Phonology Meeting.
Albright, A., Magri, G. & Michaels J.
2008 Modeling doubly marked lags with a Split Additive Model. In BUCLD 32 Proceedings , Vol. 1., H. Chan, H. Jacob & Enkeleida Kapia, 36–47. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Baertsch, K.
2002 An Optimality Theoretic Approach to Syllable Structure: The Split-margin Hierarchy. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Baertsch, K. & Davis, S.
2009 Strength relations between consonants: A syllable-based OT approach. In Strength Relations in Phonology , K. Nasukawa & P. Backley (eds), 293–324. New York NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, M., Pater, J. & Potts, C.
2007  OT-Help 1.2 software package, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [URL]
Coetzee, A. & Pater. J.
2008 Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 289–337. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Davis, S. & Baerstch, K.
2011 On the relationship between codas and onset clusters. In Handbook of the Syllable , C. Cairns & E. Raimy (eds), 71–98. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Downing, L.J.
1998 On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dumestre, G.
2003  Grammaire fondamentale du bambara . Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, A.
2008 Cumulative Faithfulness Effects in Phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Green, C.
2010 Prosodic Phonology in Bamana (Bambara): Syllable Complexity, Metrical Structure, and Tone. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Green, C. & Diakite, B.
2008 Emergent syllable complexity in Colloquial Bamana. Journal of West African Languages 35(1): 45–56.Google Scholar
Green, C. & Farris-Trimble, A.
2010 Voice contrast and cumulative faithfulness in Luwanga nouns. Studies in African Linguistics 39(2): 183–233.Google Scholar
Green, C., Davis, S., Diakite, B. & Baertsch, K.
2012 Domain-restricted reduction: A proposal for segmental feet in Bamana. In Selected Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference on African Linguistics , B. Connell & N. Rolle (eds), 1–9. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
To appear. On the role of margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana complex syllables. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory .
Ito, J. & Mester, A.
1998 Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. ROA–255.
Khanjian, H., Sudo, Y. & Thomas, G.
2010 Modeling doubly marked lags with exacerbation. Paper presented at the 18th Manchester Phonology Meeting.
Kisseberth, C. W.
1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3): 291–306.Google Scholar
Leben, W.
2002 Tonal feet. In Proceedings, typology of African prosodic systems , U. Gut & D. Gibbon (eds), 27–40. Bielefeld: Bielefeld Occasional Papers on Typology.Google Scholar
2003 Tonal feet as tonal domains. In Trends in African Linguistics 5: Linguistic Typology and Representation of African Languages , J. Mugane (ed), 129–138. Trenton NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P.
2006 The Optimality Theory-Harmonic Grammar connection. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar , P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 339–402. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, C., Schiller, N. & Levelt, W.
2000 The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8: 237–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, A.
2002 Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112: 243–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Local conjunction and comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29: 101–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Locality of conjunction. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , J. Alderete, A. Kochetov & C.-h. Han (eds), 254–262. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J.
2000 Harmonic serialism and parallelism. In Proceedings of NELS 30, M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall & J.-y. Kim (eds), 501–524. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Moreton, E.
2004 Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In Optimality Theory in Phonology: A reader , J. McCarthy (ed.), 141–164. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.
2002 Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (eds), 306–319. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pater, J.
2009 Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33(6): 999–1035. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. Universal grammar and weighted constraints. In Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism , J. McCarthy & J. Pater (eds). London: Equinox.
Pater, J., Bhatt, R. & Potts, C.
2007 Linguistic optimization. ROA–924.
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
1993/2004  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar . Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P.
1995 On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. ROA–86.
2006 Optimality in Phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar , P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 27–160. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G.
2006  The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vydrine, V.
2010 Le pied métrique dans les langues mandé. In Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale: Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels , F. Floricic (ed.), 53–62. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
Weidman, S. & Rose, S.
2006 A foot-based reanalysis of edge-in tonal phenomena in Bambara. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (eds), 426–434. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Breiss, Canaan & Adam Albright
2022. Cumulative markedness effects and (non-)linearity in phonotactics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1 DOI logo
Shih, Stephanie S.
2017. Constraint conjunction in weighted probabilistic grammar. Phonology 34:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.