Phonological opacity is a phenomenon in phonology. Opacity exists when a phonological rule that exists in a given language appears to be contradicted by the surface structure (i.e., actual pronunciation) of words in the language. Opacity is a property of a certain surface structure, rather than a specific rule. The term was first defined by Kiparsky in the following way: A phonological rule P, A → B / C _ D {\displaystyle A\rightarrow B/C{\underline {\quad }}D} , is opaque if one of the following surface structures exists:
instance of A in the C _ D {\displaystyle C{\underline {\quad }}D} environment; instance of B created by P in an environment other than C _ D {\displaystyle C{\underline {\quad }}D} ; Although we sometimes talk of opaque rules, a rule by itself is not opaque, it is the interaction between two rules that creates an opaque surface form (i.e., it becomes difficult to understand which rules were applied and how these rules interacted).
Kiparsky's Classic Model of Rule-Based Serialism Traditionally, there are four recognized, pairwise ordered, rule relations in rule-based serialism:
Given two rules A, B such that A precedes B, A feeds B iff A creates additional inputs to B A bleeds B iff A eliminates potential inputs to B B counterfeeds A iff B creates additional inputs to A B counterbleeds A iff B eliminates potential inputs to A
Example Rules For the purpose of eliciting each rule interaction in the classic model, we'll use two example rules. Rule A is a Deletion rule, where a vowel ( V ) is deleted ( Ø ) when it precedes another vowel ( __ V ). We represent this rule as V → Ø / __ V. Rule B is a Palatalization rule, where a voiceless stop /t/ palatalizes to the affricate [tʃ] when preceding /e/ ( __ e ). We represent this rule as t → tʃ / __ e.
Feeding Rule A feeds B when it occurs before B and helps B to apply. This can happen either because A creates an output that is the input for B; or A creates an output that is an environment where B can occur. In a hypothetical language with a word like /tue/, if Deletion occurs first it is said to feed Palatalization. Through the deletion of the vowel [u] (because it precedes another vowel [e]), Deletion has created an environment where Palatalization can occur, palatalizing [t] to [tʃ]. We derive [tʃe] from /tue/.
This type of rule ordering is said to be transparent, because the surface form seems to be following all rules of the language. In fact, if we look at the surface form [tʃe], we see a [tʃ] segment preceding an [e] segment. In other words, palatalization has correctly applied. The fact that /u/ was deleted and that we derived [tʃ] from /t/ is irrelevant in our assessment of whether this surface form is transparent or opaque.
Bleeding Rule A bleeds B when it occurs before B and hinders B from applying. This can happen either because A and B have the same input but A gets to it first; or if the input for A is the environment where B could've occurred. In the case of /teo/, Palatalization would've occurred if it preceded Deletion. However, since Deletion occurs before, it removes the environment where Palatalization would've occurred. We derive [to] from /teo/.
This type of rule ordering is said to be transparent, because the surface form seems to be following all rules of the language. In fact, if we look at the surface form [to], we see a [t] segment preceding an [o] segment. No rules of this hypothetical language seem to be violated. The fact that /e/ was deleted and that we weren't able to derive [tʃ] from /t/ because of this deletion is irrelevant in our assessment of whether this surface form is transparent or opaque.
Counterfeeding Rule A counterfeeds B when it occurs before B and helps B to apply. Additionally, rule B would've fed rule A if it preceded it, however it didn't. Counterfeeding can be seen as the reverse rule ordering of feeding. If we look back at /tue/, in this example Palatalization precedes Deletion. However, Palatalization can't occur because there is no relevant environment for it (namely, /t/ isn't preceding /e/ yet). Then, Deletion of /u/ occurs, making /t/ and /e/ adjacent. Deletion occurs too late for Palatalization to do anything about it. We derive [te] from /tue/.
This type of rule ordering is said to be opaque, because the surface form seems to have an environment where a rule of the language could still apply. In fact, if we look at the surface form [te], we see a [t] segment preceding an [e] segment. We know that we have a palatalization rule, and it seems like it hasn't applied here, i.e. it seems like it has underapplied. Note that no rule has actually underapplied, it only appears as if it did. If there actually is underapplication of a rule in a dataset, there's a problem with the rule. In the case of counterfeeding, all rules have applied correctly, but their ordering makes it appear like it didn't. Thus, this surface form is opaque.
Counterbleeding Rule A counterbleeds B when it occurs before B and hinders B from applying. Additionally, rule B would've bled rule A if it preceded it, however it didn't. Counterbleeding can be seen as the reverse rule ordering of bleeding. If we look back at /teo/, where Palatalization precedes Deletion, /t/ precedes /e/, therefore palatalizes into /tʃ/. /e/ precedes /o/, allowing for Deletion to occur. Palatalization doesn't hinder Deletion, so when Deletion occurs, it removes any evidence of the Palatalization environment. We derive [tʃo] from /teo/.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
