Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-gx2m9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T04:36:54.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From intensional properties to universal support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Birgit Alber ,
Natalie DelBusso  and
Alan Prince
Birgit Alber*
Affiliation:
Università di Verona
Natalie DelBusso*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Alan Prince*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
*
Alber, Università degli Studi di Verona, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Straniere, Lungadige Porta Vittoria, 41, 37129 Verona, Italy [birgit.alber@univr.it]
DelBusso and Prince, Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [n.delbusso@rutgers.edu] [prince@ruccs.rutgers.edu]
DelBusso and Prince, Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [n.delbusso@rutgers.edu] [prince@ruccs.rutgers.edu]
Get access

Abstract

An OPTIMALITY-THEORETIC (ОТ) system is specified by defining its constraints and the structures they evaluate. These give rise to a set of grammars, the TYPOLOGY of the system, which emerges from the often complex interactions among constraints and structures. Every typology is determined by a finite collection of candidate sets (csets). How do we know that we have assembled a UNIVERSAL SUPPORT, a collection of csets sufficient to distinguish all grammars of the system? Lacking a universal support, we do not have the typology and we cannot deal systematically with its structure and consequences.

This concrete question can be answered in terms of an enhanced abstract understanding of typological structure. Under PROPERTY THEORY (Alber & Prince 2015a,b), a typology is resolved into a set of PROPERTIES: ranking conditions that have mutually exclusive VALUES. When the structural correlates of each value are determined, the ranking values defining a grammar also determine the extensional TRAITS exhibited in its optima. Suppose we have the property analysis of a typology derived from a proposed support for an OT system. If every consistent choice of values ensures that a single optimum is chosen in every cset admitted by the system, then no grammar derived from the proposed support can be split by consideration of further csets, and that support must be universal for the system. This method of proof is applicable to any OT system. Here we use it to analyze the prosodic system nGX (Alber & Prince 2015b), determining its universal supports and the shape of the forms made optimal by its grammars.

Keywords

optimality theoryproperty theoryuniversal supportformal analysistypologiesstress

Information

Type
Phonological Analysis
Information
Language , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. e88 - e116
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The authors are grateful for support by Cooperint grants to Birgit Alber and Alan Prince in 2007 and 2009 from the University of Verona. Thanks also to Eric Bakovic, Nazarré Merchant, and two anonymous referees for comments and suggestions that have improved the current version.

References

Alber, Birgit, and Prince, Alan. 2015a. Outline of property theory [Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Eigenschaftstheorie]. Verona: University of Verona, and New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit, and Prince, Alan. 2015b. Typologies. Verona: University of Verona, and New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Bane, Max, and Riggle, Jason. 2012. Consequences of candidate omission. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 4. 695–706. DOI: 10.n62/ling_a_00112.10.1162/ling_a_00112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Prince, Alan. 2011. Ranking and necessity: The fusional reduction algorithm. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29.1.3–70. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9103-3.10.1007/s11049-010-9103-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett. 2012. Alignment constraints. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 789–836. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-012-9167-3.10.1007/s11049-012-9167-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett. 2015a. The midpoint pathology: What it is and what it isn’t. Technical Report. St. Louis: Washington University in St. Louis. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1401.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett. 2015b. Layering and directionality: Metrical stress in optimality theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1993. A note on directionality and alignment. Personal email to John McCarthy and Alan Prince.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4.10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Nazarré, and Prince, Alan. 2016. The mother of all tableaux. St. Petersburg, FL: Eckerd College, and New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2002a. Entailed ranking arguments. Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/510.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2002b. Arguing optimality. Papers in optimality theory II, ed. by Coetzee, Andries, Carpenter, Angela and Lacy, Paul de, 269–304. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/572.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2006. Implication and impossibility in grammatical systems. Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/903.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2014. The structure of OT typologies: First steps. Paper presented at the 11th Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP11), Leiden.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2015. One tableau suffices. Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1453.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2016. What is OT? Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/1513.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [1993 version Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/547.].Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, Tesar, Bruce; and Merchant, Nazarré. 2007-2015. OTWorkplace. Online: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/prince-home.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason. 2004. Generation, recognition, and learning in finite state optimality theory. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, dissertation.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1992. Universal constraints and morphological gemination: A crosslinguistic study. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, ms.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri, and Prince, A LAN. 1999. Optima. Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, and London: University College London. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/373.Google Scholar