Abstract
DiCanio et al. (2020) (this volume) argue that San Martín Itunyoso Triqui has a morphophonological exchange (also called ‘polarity’), where morphemes are realized by switching feature values: e.g. the bare root [anĩɦ] ‘get dirty’ is realized as [anĩː] in the 1s, while the root [aniː] ‘stop’ is 1s [anĩɦ]. In this Reply, I seek to clarify how the descriptive use of ‘exchange’ relates to and differs from its meaning in phonological theories. I also show that the issue of whether exchanges exist is highly theory-dependent. For SPE, Lexical Phonology and Morphology, and single-level parallelist OT with opacity mechanisms, the IT forms do not provide evidence for exchange mechanisms. In contrast, a version of OT that lacks opacity mechanisms probably cannot generate the IT forms without an exchange mechanism. Issues facing the analyst, such as how to prove that exchanges exist, and which apparent exchanges one should expect to observe, are also discussed.
Highlights
Where there is a final long vowel in the bare root form, the ‘3rd person proximate singular’ (3TS) morpheme is realized as an [ɦ3] (1a,b); where there is a [ɦ] in the bare root, the 3TS form appears with a long vowel (1c,d)
The 3TS morpheme is not unique in IT; similar alternations are seen with the 1st person singular suffix (1S) and a nominalizer
I argue that the IT alternations do not provide evidence for exchange rules in SPE, or anti-faithfulness constraints in single-level parallelist OT with opacity mechanisms
Summary
In Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 2004), Alderete (2001) proposes trans-derivational anti-faithfulness constraints as an exchange mechanism; de Lacy (2012) identifies additional constraint types. Focusing on Anderson & Browne (1973)’s proposal, the present question must be recast as “Must every SPE rule system that generates the IT alternations include an exchange rule?” In contrast, for Alderete (2001)’s proposal in single level parallelist OT (Prince & Smolensky 2004), the question is “Must every ranking that generates the IT alternations include a transderivational anti-faithfulness constraint?”. I argue that the IT alternations do not provide evidence for exchange rules in SPE (section 3), or anti-faithfulness constraints in single-level parallelist OT with opacity mechanisms (section 4). This Reply turns to more general questions for the analyst: how do we prove that exchange mechanisms are necessary (section 5)? If it is possible to generate apparent exchanges without exchange mechanisms, should we expect to see any type of apparent exchange (section 6)? I conclude with comments on the analyst’s broader task in regard to morphophonological exchanges (section 7)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
