Recent work under the theoretical banner of Agreement by Correspondence (ABC) has produced a variety of different – and sometimes contradictory – formulations of the constraints central to this framework. In OT, the effects of such definitional choices come out in the factorial typologies they predict. Yet knowing what languages a theoretical system derives is insufficient unless we know why it does so. This requires analysis of the internal ranking structures of the typology itself. This paper compares the typologies produced under different proposed modifications to the main ABC constraints. We analyse the typologies in Property Theory, a theory of typological organisation in OT. Our analyses show that all variations have a common core structure, and that differences in their factorial typologies reduce to differences in how this common structure expands and iterates for different features. This allows for precise delineation of how and why different ABC constraint definitions affect typologies.

The term ‘environmental shielding’ has been used to refer to a class of processes in which the phonetic realisation of a nasal stop depends on its vocalic context. In Chiriguano, for example, nasal consonants are realised as such before nasal vowels (/mã/ → [mã]), but acquire an oral release before oral vowels (/ma/ → [mba]). Herbert (1986) claims that shielding protects a contrast between oral and nasal vowels: if Chiriguano /ma/ were realised as [ma], [a] would likely carry some degree of nasal coarticulation, and be less distinct from nasal /ã/. This article provides new arguments for Herbert's position, drawn from a large typological study of South American languages. I argue that environmental shielding is contrast preservation, and that any successful analysis of shielding must make explicit reference to contrast. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that constraints on contrast are an essential component of phonological theory.

In the Southern Bavarian variety of Tyrolean, laryngeal contrasts undergo a typologically interesting process of neutralisation in word-initial position. We undertake an acoustic analysis of Tyrolean stops in word-initial, word-medial intersonorant and word-final contexts, as well as in obstruent clusters, investigating the role of the acoustic parameters VOT, prevoicing, closure duration and F0 and H1–H2* on following vowels in implementing contrast, if any. Results show that stops contrast word-medially via [voice] (supported by the acoustic cues of closure duration and F0), and are neutralised completely in word-final position and in obstruent clusters. Word-initially, neutralisation is subject to inter- and intraspeaker variability, and is sensitive to place of articulation. Aspiration plays no role in implementing laryngeal contrasts in Tyrolean.

In her study published in this journal, Newlin-Łukowicz (2012) calls into question the existence of bidirectional stress systems. The argument hinges on the failure to detect acoustic correlates of word-internal subsidiary stress in Polish, the language hitherto considered to be a classic example of metrical bidirectionality. This paper reappraises the issue, reporting on an acoustic study of paired five- and six-syllable words in Polish (e.g. ˎpomido′rowy – ˎpomiˎdoro-′wego). The results indicate that the words differ significantly with respect to relative consonant duration (PVI values) in the onset of the third syllable, depending on whether the syllable bears subsidiary stress (as in six-syllable words) or remains unstressed (as in five-syllable words). Similar effects are reported in the initial syllable, but not in the second syllable, which remains consistently unstressed. The conclusion is that Polish has iterative stress, corroborating its traditional description as having a bidirectional stress system.

Jardine (2016) claims that tonal phonology is more formally complex than the phonology of other segmental features, in that only tonal phonology goes beyond the class of weakly deterministic maps. He then goes on to argue that this formal distinction is superior to any available treatment in Optimality Theory. This reply points out that Jardine's formal distinction conflates attested and unattested tonal patterns, which can be distinguished in Optimality Theory, given a substantively defined constraint set.