Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Steriade1997

Lexical Conservatism — Steriade 1997 #

[Ste97]

Lexical Conservatism (LC) is paradigm uniformity anchored on attestation: a candidate surfacing form preferentially aligns with an attested wordform of the lexeme, and the strength of the alignment scales with how well-attested the anchor is. LC predicts that paradigms with no attested anchor (e.g. bound stems with no free wordform) impose no LC pressure — the candidate is free to satisfy markedness alone — while a strongly-attested anchor imposes strong pressure preserving the anchor's segments.

This file holds the LC substrate — the paper's anchored-paradigm primitive, anchored to its originating paper and consumed by later study files. Studies/BreissKatsudaKawahara2026.lean instantiates it for Japanese velar nasalisation: bound-N2 compounds nasalise categorically (no anchor), while in free-N2 compounds nasalisation is suppressed in proportion to the N2's free-form attestation strength.

Architecture #

LC reuses the generic symmetric lift Constraints.liftPairwise; what distinguishes it from Optimal Paradigms ([McC05], Studies/McCarthy2005.lean) is which forms enter the paradigm, not the lift. lcParadigm takes a candidate plus an optional attested anchor, returning a singleton when the anchor is absent (no LC pressure) and a pair when present. OP sums over every member with no distinguished anchor and so cannot model the bound/free split without auxiliary stipulation; LC handles it by paradigm membership alone (lc_unanchored_zero).

The strength of the LC pressure is a downstream frequency-conditioned weight on the constraint, supplied by the consuming study.

Main definitions #

Not the 2000 paper #

[Ste00b] ("Paradigm Uniformity and the Phonetics–Phonology Boundary") is a different Steriade contribution, arguing PU effects are gradient and phonetically grounded. This file formalises only the categorical 1997 Lexical Conservatism account; a gradient-correspondence treatment along the lines of [Ste00b] is not yet modelled.

Out of scope #

Anchored paradigm #

def Steriade1997.lcParadigm {Form : Type u_1} (candidate : Form) (anchor : Option Form) :
List Form

Build an LC paradigm from a candidate form and an optional attested anchor. When the anchor is present, the paradigm is [candidate, anchor]; when absent, it is [candidate]. Anchor presence is the LC channel: bound/unattested → singleton, free/attested → pair.

Equations
Instances For
    @[simp]
    theorem Steriade1997.lcParadigm_none {Form : Type u_1} (candidate : Form) :
    lcParadigm candidate none = [candidate]
    @[simp]
    theorem Steriade1997.lcParadigm_some {Form : Type u_1} (candidate anchor : Form) :
    lcParadigm candidate (some anchor) = [candidate, anchor]

    LC-FAITH constraint #

    def Steriade1997.mkLCFaith {Form : Type u_1} (_name : String) (mismatch : FormForm) :

    Build an LC-FAITH constraint: per-pair faithfulness mismatch summed over the LC paradigm. The same liftPairwise is reused; what distinguishes LC from OP is the paradigm-construction discipline (lcParadigm), not the lift.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Unanchored paradigms have zero LC-FAITH violations #

      theorem Steriade1997.lc_unanchored_zero {Form : Type u_1} (name : String) (mismatch : FormForm) (h_diagonal : ∀ (f : Form), mismatch f f = 0) (candidate : Form) :
      mkLCFaith name mismatch (lcParadigm candidate none) = 0

      A paradigm with no attested anchor (singleton) has zero LC-FAITH violations: the only ordered pair is the diagonal, and a well-formed mismatch returns 0 on the diagonal. This is the structural source of the prediction that bound stems exhibit no LC effect — a derived consequence of paradigm construction, not a stipulation.