{"id":17538,"date":"1969-12-29T06:04:00","date_gmt":"1969-12-29T11:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/1969\/12\/29\/phonology-circle-3-10-chelsea-tang-mit\/"},"modified":"1969-12-29T06:04:00","modified_gmt":"1969-12-29T11:04:00","slug":"phonology-circle-3-10-chelsea-tang-mit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/1969\/12\/29\/phonology-circle-3-10-chelsea-tang-mit\/","title":{"rendered":"Phonology Circle 3\/10 - Chelsea Tang (MIT)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speaker: <\/strong> Chelsea Tang (MIT)
Title: <\/strong>Reduplicative Opacity in G?k?y?: Evidence for Backcopying and BR-Distantial Faithfulness
Time: <\/strong>Wednesday, March 10th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: <\/strong>32-D831

Abstract: <\/strong>Backcopying is an overapplication phenomenon where the reduplicant undergoes a phonological process, then the base \u0093copies back\u0094 from the reduplicant even when the environment is not met in the base. The veracity of backcopying data has been the center of debate in contemporary theories of reduplication (see McCarthy and Prince 1995; Inkelas and Zoll 2005; Kiparsky 2010; and McCarthy, Kimper, and Mullin 2012, among others) as it bears on whether a theory under or over-generates. In this talk, I present new backcopying data from Gi?ku?yu? and provide an analysis within Base-Reduplicant Correspondence Theory (BRCT; McCarthy and Prince 1995) with Distantial Faithfulness Constraint (Kirchner 1995). <\/p>\n

Gi?ku?yu? has two types of backcopying? (1) optional backcopying (i.e., backcopied and non-backcopied variants are in free variation) when prenasalized stop formation (\/Nt, N?\/ ? [?d], \/N?\/ ? [?d?], \/Nk, N?\/ ? [?g]) and foot reduplication interact; (2) obligatory backcopying when prenasalized stop formation, foot reduplication, and Meinhof\u0092s law (NC?\u0085N?(C) ? N?\u0085N?(C)) interact. A sample of the data is shown below?<\/p>\n

1) Optional Backcopying<\/p>\n

Stem N+Stem N+RED+Stem
\n[t??i\u00f0ia] \u0091help\u0092 [?d??i\u00f0ia] \u0091help me\u0092 [?d??i\u00f0a=?d??i\u00f0ia] or [?d??i\u00f0a=t??i\u00f0ia] \u0091help me a little\u0092<\/p>\n

[???a] \u0091draw\u0092 [?d???a] \u0091draw me\u0092 [?d???a=?d???a] or [?d???a=???a] \u0091draw me =\u0092<\/p>\n

[?i?ikana] \u0091remember\u0092 [?di?ikana] \u0091remember me\u0092 [?di?a=?di?ikana] or [?di?a=?i?ikana] \u0091remember me =\u0092<\/p>\n

*Note: *[t??i\u00f0a=?d??i\u00f0ia]; *[???a=?d???a]; *[?i?a=?di?ikana]<\/p>\n

2) Obligatory Backcopying<\/p>\n

Stem N+Stem N+RED+Stem
\n[??ma] \u0091defeat\u0092 [n?ma] \u0091defeat me\u0092 [n?ma=n?ma] \u0091defeat me a little\u0092<\/p>\n

[?omia] \u0091feed\u0092 [nomia] \u0091feed me\u0092 [noma=nomia] \u0091feed me a little\u0092<\/p>\n

[?ando?a] \u0091remind sb. of a debt\u0092 [nando?a] \u0091remind me of a debt\u0092 [nanda=nando?a] \u0091remind me to pay x =\u0092<\/p>\n

*Note: *[n?ma=??ma] ~ *[??ma=n?ma]; *[noma=?omia] ~ *[?oma=nomia]; *[nanda=?ando?a] *[?anda=nando?a]<\/p>\n

To account for the obligatory backcopying cases, I propose that the distinguishing factor lies in the onset\u0092s ratio of nasality in the base vs. the reduplicant. On a ratio-of-nasality scale of [t, k, ?, ?, ?] = 0, [?d, ?d?] = 1, [n] = 2, a Distantial Faithfulness constraint penalizes segments in RED that differ too much from their Base correspondents. Consequently, Base-Reduplicant pairs like [?d?]\u0085[?] are acceptable because their nasality distance is ?1, whereas [n]\u0085[?] is disfavored because the \u0091distance\u0092 is 2.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaker: Chelsea Tang (MIT)Title: Reduplicative Opacity in G?k?y?: Evidence for Backcopying and BR-Distantial FaithfulnessTime: Wednesday, March 10th, 5pm - 6:30pmLocation: 32-D831Abstract: Backcopying is an overapplication phenomenon where the reduplicant undergoes a phonological process, then the base \u0093copies back\u0094 from the reduplicant even when the environment is not met in the base. The veracity of backcopying […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17538","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17538"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17538\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}