On derived environments in GP

This paper takes up the currently topical issue of derived environment effects (DEE) that is mainly to be found in the Optimality Theory (OT) literature (It� & Mester 1996, Burzio 1998, ?ubowicz 2002, McCarthy 2003) but see also Kiparsky (1993) and Inkelas (1998). The discussion involves revisiting an old problem highlighted in Kiparsky 1973?s definition of opacity given in (1). (1) Opacity (Kiparsky 1973:79) A rule (A -> B / C__D) is opaque to the extent that there are surafce representations of the form: (i) A in the environment C__D (apparent underapplication, counterfeeding opacity) (ii) B in the environment other that C__D (apparent overapplication, counterbleeding opacity) Thus in 1(i) a rule fails to occur despite its conditions being met and in 1(ii) the effects of a rule are seen in environments where its conditions are not met. DEE are in this sense a case of 1(i), particularly; restricting phonological rules to applying only in derived environments while non-derived environments display the effects of 1(i). Morphologically derived environmnets involve phonological rules applying at morphological junctures or boundaries, while phonologically derived environments revolve around a segment that is in no such morphological environment. Such apparent mismatches were easily accounted for in earlier phonological approaches that took recourse to rule ordering by, for example, utilising the Strict Cycle Condition as in Kiparsky (1982). Unfortunately, since the advent of OT, all derivational approaches have been branded as endorsing rule ordering, (irrespective of the last couple of decades of research) and therefore as able to handle DEE. This paper aims to show that DEE are a problem for all phonological approaches that do not employ rule ordering whether they are derivational or not, and proposes a possible way of tackling DEE in Government Phonology, a derivational non-rule ordering framework. The paper presents in section 2 the gist of the proposal that is then applied to phonologically derived environmnets in section 3. Morphologically derived environments (section 4) are seen to, on the one hand, utilise the basic principle that phonologically DEE do, but to also, on the other hand, require a solution that is sensitive to their morphologically complex nature. I offer some concluding remarks in Section 5.