Conflict resolution: Proper inclusion v. overlap Eric Bakovi UC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Conflict resolution: Proper inclusion v. overlap Eric Bakovi ć UC San Diego Competition Workshop 2015 Linguistic Summer Institute University of Chicago July 12, 2015

(conflict = competition) here, competition between 
 generalizations over (phonological) strings

the point • Phonologists, morphologists, and other linguists have long thought that proper inclusion between structural descriptions is a (very) special thing. • Why? What’s so special about proper inclusion? • I argue that the celebrated distinction between proper inclusion and overlap is a spurious one. • All that matters is conflict , and how it is resolved.

See my 2013 monograph for this same point, embedded in a larger discussion of blocking, complementarity, and the principles that are proposed to regulate these.

SPE rules and order In rule-based generative phonology, generalizations are expressed as serially-ordered rewrite rules. only ordering 😖 free reapplication feeding bleeding /ABD/ /ABD/ AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD ACD CD ⟶ CE BD ⟶ BE ACE — counterfeeding counterbleeding /ABD/ /ABD/ CD ⟶ CE BD ⟶ BE — ABE AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD ACE direct mapping free reapplication or direct mapping Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1977, 1979) Kiparsky (1968)

Disjunctive application Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application Stress the antepenultimate vowel if there is one and if the penultimate vowel is short and in an open syllable (i.e. the penultimate syllable is light). Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application Otherwise, stress the penultimate vowel if there is one. Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application Otherwise, stress the final vowel. Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application If application of such rules were pa-tri-ci-a trí cí á conjunctive rather than disjunctive, there could be as many as three stresses assigned to one word. Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application Note the proper inclusion relationships among these strings, capitalized upon by the parenthesis notation

Metrical stress theory • Final syllable extrametricality (modulo exhaustivity). • Assign a bimoraic trochee at the right edge. pa-(trí-ci)- ⟨ a ⟩ (ré-fi)- ⟨ cit ⟩ re-(f ḗ )- ⟨ cit ⟩ re-(féc)- ⟨ tus ⟩ (méns) (r ḗ ) Hayes (1981, 1995)

Conflict in SPE Actual conflict between rewrite rules arises under two conditions: mutual feeding and mutual bleeding. mutual feeding 1 mutual bleeding 1 /ABD/ /ABD/ AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD ACD CD ⟶ BD AB ⟶ AE “Duke of York” ABD — derivations: “Duke of Earl” X ⟶ Y ⟶ X derivations: mutual feeding 2 mutual bleeding 2 /ACD/ /ABD/ X ⟶ Y ⥇ Z CD ⟶ BD AB ⟶ AE ABD AED AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD — Pullum (1976) Kiparsky (1971)

Conflict in SPE mutual feeding 1 mutual bleeding 1 /ABD/ /ABD/ AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD ACD CD ⟶ BD AB ⟶ AE ABD — mutual feeding 2 mutual bleeding 2 /ACD/ /ABD/ CD ⟶ BD AB ⟶ AE ABD AED AB ⟶ AC AB ⟶ AC ACD — Neither of these types of interactions appears to require anything other than ordering. And yet…

Proper Inclusion Elsewhere Condition Precedence Principle Two rules of the form A ⟶ B / P __ Q For any representation R, “incompatible structural changes” C ⟶ D / R __ S which meets the structural = X ⟶ Y vs. Y ⟶ X description of each of two are disjunctively ordered iff: the Elsewhere Condition is thus a rules A and B, A takes A. the set of strings that response to issues involving cases applicational precedence of mutual feeding — it prevents fit PAQ is a subset of Duke of York derivations over B with respect to R iff the set of strings that the structural description of fit RCS , and A properly includes the B. the structural changes structural description of B. of the two rules are incompatible. Kiparsky (1973) Koutsoudas et al. (1974)

Proper Inclusion Elsewhere Condition Precedence Principle “For all the cases of proper inclusion precedence considered here, the Two rules of the form related rules are intrinsically A ⟶ B / P __ Q disjunctive, since application of either For any representation R, rule yields a representation that fails C ⟶ D / R __ S which meets the structural to satisfy the structural description of description of each of two are disjunctively ordered iff: the other.” (fn. 7, p. 9) rules A and B, A takes A. the set of strings that the Proper Inclusion Precedence applicational precedence fit PAQ is a subset of Principle is thus a response to issues over B with respect to R iff the set of strings that involving cases of mutual bleeding — the structural description of to predict the order of rules in a Duke fit RCS , and of Earl relationship A properly includes the B. the structural changes structural description of B. of the two rules are incompatible. Kiparsky (1973) Koutsoudas et al. (1974)

Proper Inclusion Elsewhere Condition Precedence Principle Two rules of the form A ⟶ B / P __ Q For any representation R, C ⟶ D / R __ S which meets the structural description of each of two are disjunctively ordered iff: rules A and B, A takes • the set of strings that fit applicational precedence PAQ is a subset of the over B with respect to R iff set of strings that fit the structural description of RCS , and A properly includes the • the structural changes structural description of B. of the two rules are incompatible . Kiparsky (1973) Koutsoudas et al. (1974)

Elsewhere Condition Two rules of the form A ⟶ B / P __ Q C ⟶ D / R __ S are disjunctively ordered iff: • the set of strings that fit PAQ is a subset of the set of strings that fit RCS , and • the structural changes of the two rules are incompatible . Kiparsky (1973)

English 
 lengthening & shortening • CiV Lengthening: V ⟶ V ̄ / ( ˈ __ C i ) V • e.g. re( ˈ m ē di) ⟨ al ⟩ , ( ˈ r ā di) ⟨ al ⟩ , me( ˈ l ō di) ⟨ ous ⟩ … • Trisyllabic Shortening: V ⟶ V ̆ / ( ˈ __ C 0 V) • e.g. ( ˈ r ĕ me) ⟨ dy ⟩ , ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ cal ⟩ , ( ˈ m ĕ lo) ⟨ dy ⟩ … Kenstowicz (1994)

English 
 lengthening & shortening proper inclusion! V ⟶ V ̄ / ( ˈ __ C i ) V V ⟶ V ̆ / ( ˈ __ C 0 V) conflict! Kenstowicz (1994)

English 
 lengthening & shortening ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ al ⟩ ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ cal ⟩ ✻ = blocking by EC Lengthening 
 V ⟶ V ̄ / ( ˈ __ C i ) V ( ˈ r ā di) ⟨ al ⟩ — Shortening 
 ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ cal ⟩ ✻ V ⟶ V ̆ / ( ˈ __ C 0 V) Kenstowicz (1994)

English 
 lengthening & shortening ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ al ⟩ ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ cal ⟩ Just to avoid this? Shortening 
 V ⟶ V ̆ / ( ˈ __ C 0 V) ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ al ⟩ ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ cal ⟩ Lengthening 
 V ⟶ V ̄ / ( ˈ __ C i ) V ( ˈ r ā di) ⟨ al ⟩ — Chomsky & Halle (1968)

Disjunctive application is “maximized”. Chomsky (1967: 124-125), Chomsky & Halle (1968: 63)

“[C]ertain natural economy conditions” require that there be “no ‘superfluous steps’ in derivations”. Chomsky (1995: 220), Halle & Idsardi (1998: 1)

Nootka / Nuuchahnulth 
 labialization & delabialization Overlap requires muq ħ aju-qi ɫ a ː k ʷ - ʃ it ɫ Duke of York! Labialization 
 muq ʷ ħ aju-q ʷ i — [dors] ⟶ [+rd] / [+rd] Delabialization 
 muq — ɫ a ː k- ʃ it ɫ [dors] ⟶ [–rd] / __ ] σ Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1977)

Whence proper inclusion? • Proper inclusion is the one subcase of overlap for which there is only one truly possible order. • General > Specific allows Specific to apply, • Specific > General occults Specific. • Proper inclusion is asymmetrically complete ; unique among forms of overlap in that it can be non-arbitrarily used to determine which of two conflicting rules is blocked.

English ʹ
 lengthening & shortening ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ al ⟩ ( ˈ rådi) ⟨ cal ⟩ Rules reversed Lengthening 
 V ⟶ V ̄ / ( ˈ __ C i ) V ( ˈ r ā di) ⟨ al ⟩ — Shortening 
 V ⟶ V ̆ / ( ˈ __ C 0 V) ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ al ⟩ ( ˈ r ă di) ⟨ cal ⟩

Nootka / Nuuchahnulth ʹ
 labialization & delabialization muq ħ aju-qi ɫ a ː k ʷ - ʃ it ɫ Rules reversed Delabialization 
 muq — ɫ a ː k- ʃ it ɫ [dors] ⟶ [–rd] / __ ] σ Labialization 
 muq ʷ ħ aju-q ʷ i — [dors] ⟶ [+rd] / [+rd]

So what counts as conflict?

English

English ʹ

Nootka / Nuuchahnulth

Nootka / Nuuchahnulth ʹ

mutual feeding ‘obliterative bleeding’ Kiparsky (1973)

Diola Fogny 
 assimilation & deletion proper proper inclusion! inclusion! N ⟶ [ α pl] / __ [ α pl, –ct] C ⟶ ∅ / __ C conflict??? Kiparsky (1973)

Diola Fogny 
 assimilation & deletion ✻ = blocking by EC ni-gam-gam na-la ŋ -la ŋ let-ku-jaw Assimilation 
 N ⟶ [ α pl] / __ [ α pl, –ct] ni-ga ŋ -gam — — Deletion 
 ✻ na-la-la ŋ le-ku-jaw C ⟶ ∅ / __ C Kiparsky (1973)

Diola Fogny ʹ
 assimilation & deletion this order… ni-gam-gam na-la ŋ -la ŋ let-ku-jaw Assimilation 
 N ⟶ [ α pl] / __ [ α pl, –ct] ni-ga ŋ -gam — — Deletion 
 ni-ga-gam na-la-la ŋ le-ku-jaw C ⟶ ∅ / __ C ‘obliterative bleeding’ Kiparsky (1973)