Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible Marc van Oostendorp Leiden University & Meertens Instituut Network on Morphological Exponence
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible 1. I claim that one of the ‘functions’ of phonology is to make morphology visible 2. Many phonological anomalies can be understood from this function 3. I present an OT model in which underlying structures are morphosyntactic feature bundles 4. it is the function of Gen to interpret these bundles, among other things by lexical insertion 5. This explains ineffability and allomorphy
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible Two theories of faithfulness Two theories of faithfulness Consistency of Exponence Ineffability Examples and possible analyses Ineffability in classical Containment Relativized MP ARSE Background Not parsing the morphology for phonological reasons Allomorphy The nature of inputs A case study: Dyirbal Alternative analysis
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Containment and Correspondence 1. Correspondence Theory: There are separate input and output representations, as well as correspondence constraints between elements of these (McCarthy and Prince 1995) 2. Containment Theory: The input is contained in the output, therefore all faithfulness constraints can be read off the surface representation (Prince and Smolensky 1993, Van Oostendorp 2005).
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Correspondence input k l u k output k u k u
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Containment • Containment. Every element of the phonological input representation is contained in the output. (There is no deletion.)
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Containment: Prince and Smolensky 1993 • P ARSE : All elements should be ‘parsed’ in the phonological structure (no deletion.) • F ILL : Do not allow empty elements. (No insertion.)
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Containment Representation Φ k l u k ∅
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Occam’s Razor and Containment • P ARSE -C: Every consonant needs to be affiliated to prosodic structure • F ILL -V: (Nucelar) syllable slots need features.
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Problems with the Prince & Smolensky Interpretation • features should also not be allowed to ever spread to an epenthetic vowel • how do we prevent spreading from happening everywhere in every language?
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible Two theories of faithfulness Two theories of faithfulness Consistency of Exponence Ineffability Examples and possible analyses Ineffability in classical Containment Relativized MP ARSE Background Not parsing the morphology for phonological reasons Allomorphy The nature of inputs A case study: Dyirbal Alternative analysis
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Consistency of Exponence • “No changes in the exponence of a phonologically-specified morpheme are permitted.” (McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1994)
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Consistency of Exponence “[Consistency of Exponence] means that the lexical specifications of a morpheme (segments, prosody, or whatever) can never be affected by Gen. In particular, epenthetic elements posited by Gen will have no morphological affiliation, even when they lie within or between strings with morphemic identity. Similarly, underparsing of segments — failure to endow them with syllable structure — will not change the make-up of a morpheme, though it will surely change how that morpheme is realized phonetically. Thus, any given morpheme’s phonological exponents must be identical in underlying and surface form.”
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy CoE Representation Φ k l u k u M
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Consistency of Exponence (Coloured version) • Gen does not affect morphological colours.
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Faithfulness constraints (coloured versions) • P ARSE - φ ( x ): The morphological element x must be incorporated into the phonological structure. (No deletion.) • P ARSE - µ ( x ): The phonological element x must be incorporated into the morphological structure. (No insertion.)
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible Two theories of faithfulness Two theories of faithfulness Consistency of Exponence Ineffability Examples and possible analyses Ineffability in classical Containment Relativized MP ARSE Background Not parsing the morphology for phonological reasons Allomorphy The nature of inputs A case study: Dyirbal Alternative analysis
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Example: Dutch diminutives base form diminutive form gloss man man- @tj@ man maan maan- tj@ moon raam raam- pj@ window dak dak- j@ roof
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Example: exceptions to diminutive formation base form diminutive form gloss ?? lente- tj@ lente spring ∗ lent- j@ ?? schade- tj@ schade damage ∗ schaad- j@ ?? boete- tj@ boete fee ?? boet- j@ ?? Hilde- tj@ Hilde (name) ? Hilde- k@
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Lexicalisation • These words tend to get better, when they are repeated; for some speakers a name such as Hildetje has become perfectly acceptable. • We thus have a form of a derived environment effect • We find this more often in cases of ineffability: derived forms of shape X cannot be generated, even if X exists underlyingly
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Dealing with ineffability within OT (1) 1. The ‘paradigmatic solution’: the Generator function does not generate an individual form, but a paradigm. Ineffability of an individual form means that this particular form is not generated within the paradigm (Rice 2005, 2006). 2. The ‘null parse’ solution: the Generator function generates a candidate in the phonology which does not have a phonetic interpretation, and this is selected as the winner in certain cases (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Wolfe 2006).
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Dealing with ineffability within OT (2) 3. The ‘control’ solution: the Generator and Evaluator function conspire to create a (pronounceable) candidate, but a grammatical component outside of the standard OT system then blocks this candidate (Orgun & Sprouse 1999) 4. The ‘divergent meaning’ solution: we generate a phonologically well-formed form, but one which does not have the intended semantics; the form is therefore unusable. This solution is basically the one proposed for syntax, and will be defended here for phonology.
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Ineffability and faithfulness • In all of these solutions, the account is in the relation between input and output structures of forms, i.e. in the theory of faithfulness.
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Morphology is visible Two theories of faithfulness Two theories of faithfulness Consistency of Exponence Ineffability Examples and possible analyses Ineffability in classical Containment Relativized MP ARSE Background Not parsing the morphology for phonological reasons Allomorphy The nature of inputs A case study: Dyirbal Alternative analysis
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy No Structure May be Optimal / rˇ e / F T B IN L X ≈ P R . . . P ARSE a. rˇ e * . . . * b. [ ( rˇ e ) F ] PrWd *! . . .
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy But Can We Ever Derive More Complicated Cases • Why would it be more optimal to derive ∅ from an input structure { lent@ , tj@ } , rather than, say, [ lent@j@ ]?
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Another attempt: MP ARSE “On this view, then, the underlying form of an item will consist of a very incompletely structured set of specifications which constrain but do not themselves fully determine even the morphological character of the output form. These specifications must be put in relation, parsed into structure, in order to be interpretable. ” “Failure to achieve morphological parsing is fatal. An unparsed item has no morphological category, and cannot be interpreted, either semantically or in terms of higher morphological structure.”
Two theories of faithfulness Ineffability Relativized MP ARSE Allomorphy Problems with MP ARSE • If higher-order systems are also OT grammars, where is the crash? • How can we maintain Richness of the Base?
Recommend
More recommend
