{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03175965665236052, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011158798283261802, 'mean_word_length': 5.477777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Output-Output Correspondence in Optimality Theory

1. Overview Output-output correspondence (OOC) constraints, constraints which demand correspondence between independently occurring surface forms, have recently been added to the set of constraint types invoked in much OT work. In this paper we examine some of the better-known arguments originally adduced in support of OOC constraints, and argue that adoption of such a powerful mechanism is not justified, at least in the cases discussed. This paper deals specifically with the following: the incomplete/complete phase distinction of Rotuman, as analyzed by McCarthy (1995); English truncated hypocoristics, as discussed by Benua (1995); and the treatement of Base Identity and Uniform Exponence in Ken-stowicz (1994). Three criticisms are leveled at the OOC-based analyses cited above. First, we find cases of 'opportunism.' For example, there is an unprincipled culling of the data and an unprincipled choice of bases in correspondence relations. Second , there is misanalysis, in that clearly significant generalizations are overlooked , technical aspects of the theory are improperly treated and implausible