Transderivational Correspondence Theory (TCT) #
@cite{benua-1997}
TCT extends @cite{mccarthy-prince-1995} Correspondence Theory with O-O faithfulness constraints over morphologically related words. The characteristic architectural commitment is recursive evaluation with base priority: the base form is computed under a sub-grammar (IO-Faith + Markedness only), then frozen and supplied as a parameter to the derivative's evaluation under a richer grammar (IO-Faith + OO-Faith + Markedness).
Distinguishing architectural feature #
The base-priority discipline is what distinguishes TCT from siblings:
| Theory | Architecture | Base priority? |
|---|---|---|
| Parallel OT (@cite{mccarthy-prince-1995}) | One pass, joint EVAL | n/a — no separate base |
| Optimal Paradigms (@cite{mccarthy-2005}) | Symmetric pairwise OO-Faith over paradigm | No — no privileged base |
| Stratal OT (@cite{kiparsky-2000}) | Cyclic stratal EVAL | Yes, but via cycles |
| TCT (@cite{benua-1997}) | Parallel within-form, recursive across forms | Yes, by sub-grammar |
| Lexical Conservatism (@cite{steriade-2000}) | Anchor on attested wordform | Yes, but anchor optional |
We encode base priority by the type signature
TCTGrammar.baseEval : List α → List α — there is no derivative slot,
so derivative-back-influence is ill-typed by construction. This is a
modeling choice (one could equally have written
baseEval : List α → List α → List α); the type-level encoding
reflects the architectural commitment of @cite{benua-1997}'s "Priority
of the Base", but does not deduce it.
TETRU schema #
The Emergence of the Relatively Unmarked: a constraint ranking of the
form M₁ ≫ OO-Ident ≫ M₂ ≫ IO-Faith (Benua's analog of M&P's
reduplicative TETU) produces misapplication identity effects —
context-sensitive markedness M₂ is violated in the derivative iff
necessary to preserve OO-identity to the base. This unifies
overapplication and underapplication as duals of a single mechanism.
The empirical case studies — Sundanese nasal harmony overapplication
and Tiberian Hebrew spirantization underapplication — are formalized
in Phenomena/Phonology/Studies/Benua1997.lean.
What lives where #
This file: the substrate — Role enum, TCTGrammar structure, base-priority
type-level fact, TetruSchema structure with named constraint slots, and
the misapplication-unification theorem. Concrete evaluation (sub-grammar
selection, candidate generation) is paper-specific and lives in study
files. The paradigm-uniformity face of TCT (Corr-style API for
within-paradigm OO-Faith) lives in
ParadigmUniformity/Transderivational.lean.
The three derivational roles of @cite{benua-1997}: .input is the
underlying form (UR); .base is the morphologically simpler related
word; .derivative is the complex word whose phonology is being
computed. The (base, derivative) edge of a Corr TCT.Role α carries
OO-correspondence; the (input, base) and (input, derivative) edges
carry IO-correspondence.
Instances For
Equations
- Phonology.TCT.instDecidableEqRole x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Phonology.TCT.instReprRole = { reprPrec := Phonology.TCT.instReprRole.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phonology.TCT.instReprRole.repr Phonology.TCT.Role.input prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Phonology.TCT.Role.input")).group prec✝
- Phonology.TCT.instReprRole.repr Phonology.TCT.Role.base prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Phonology.TCT.Role.base")).group prec✝
Instances For
Display label for a TCT role (used in constraint names: IDENT-OO,
MAX-IO-Base, etc.).
Equations
Instances For
A TCT grammar separates base evaluation (under a sub-grammar with
no OO-Faith) from derivative evaluation (under the full grammar
including OO-Faith against the frozen base output). The α-typed
forms are tier-projected representations (segments, tones, etc.).
The architectural claim of @cite{benua-1997}'s "Priority of the Base"
is encoded in the type signatures: baseEval : List α → List α
cannot mention the derivative; derivativeEval : List α → List α → List α
takes the base output as a frozen parameter.
- baseEval : List α → List α
Optimal base form, computed from the input alone. The signature
List α → List αencodes the architectural commitment that no derivative is in scope — a modeling choice that reflects but does not deduce base priority. - derivativeEval : List α → List α → List α
Optimal derivative form, computed from the input and the (already- computed) base output. The base is a frozen parameter, not an argument under joint evaluation.
Instances For
Compute the surface form of a TCT derivative: first evaluate the base, then the derivative against the frozen base.
Equations
- g.derive input = g.derivativeEval input (g.baseEval input)
Instances For
The TCT derivation factorizes through the base: changing only the
derivativeEval does not change the base output.
The TETRU constraint-ranking schema as a structure with named slots. Used by @cite{benua-1997} (analog of @cite{mccarthy-prince-1995}'s reduplicative TETU schema, with OO-Ident replacing BR-Ident as the "covering" faithfulness constraint).
The four slots, in dominance order:
m1— high-ranked markedness, blocks overapplication that would produce a too-marked structure (the case of Tiberian Hebrew TETRU).ooIdent— OO-Identity. Outranksm2, forcing misapplication.m2— context-sensitive markedness whose canonical satisfaction pattern is overridden by OO-Ident in the derivative.ioFaith— Input-Output faithfulness. Lowest-ranked; can be violated to satisfym2orooIdent.
- ooIdent : Core.Constraint.OT.NamedConstraint C
- ioFaith : Core.Constraint.OT.NamedConstraint C
Instances For
Convert a TetruSchema to a ranked list of constraints in dominance
order: [m1, ooIdent, m2, ioFaith].
Instances For
The TETRU schema places m1 at the top of the ranking.
OO-Ident sits at position 1 of the TETRU ranking — strictly above
m2 and ioFaith. The load-bearing structural fact: under TETRU,
OO-Ident dominates the markedness constraint that would otherwise
block misapplication.
Misapplication unification (the architectural content of TCT @cite{benua-1997}): under TETRU, when two candidates tie on M₁, the candidate with strictly fewer OO-Ident violations strictly beats the other on OO-Ident — regardless of M₂ and IO-Faith.
Empirical reading: the "misapplied" candidate (overapplied harmony in Sundanese, underapplied spirantization in Tiberian Hebrew) violates M₂ to satisfy OO-Ident; the "canonical" candidate satisfies M₂ but violates OO-Ident. Under TETRU, the misapplied candidate strictly beats the canonical one at the OO-Ident level — this is what makes overapplication and underapplication duals of one mechanism.
Symmetric form: when two candidates tie on M₁, OO-Ident is the deciding constraint. The OO-Ident-better candidate has strictly fewer violations at the second-highest-ranked position.