Representational Alternative for Lexically-Specific Phonology

1. A representational alternative for lexically-specific phonology 27th Manchester Phonology Meeting 23-25 May Samir Ben Si Saïda Tobias Scheerb aUniversity Mouloud Mammeri of Tizi Ouzou bUniversité Côte d'Azur, CNRS, Bases Corpus Langage (BCL)

2. purpose Lexically-specificphonology iscurrentlyanalyzed by a variety of mechanisms • rules cum diacritics • indexedconstraints • co-phonologies

3. purpose • all mechanisms at hand devise • differentsub-lexicaidentified by a diacritic • differentcomputationalsystemsthatselectivelyapply to a givensub-lexicon.

4. purpose alternative • representational, ratherthancomputational • no diacritic-identifiedsub-lexica • just one computational system • lexical specificityis a property of the autosegmental structure of lexical entries • association is not automatic • associaitonlines are an active piece of phonology. • theymaybemanipulated by phonologicalcomputation • and bear lexical instructions regardingtheirbehaviourduring computation. relates to work by Ben Si Saïd (2010, 2014), Newell & Scheer (2017), Ziková & Scheer (2009), Ben Si Saïd et al. (2009), Encrevé & Scheer (2005)

5. workings of current computational mechanisms • divide the lexiconintoseveralsub-lexica and giveeach a name (diacritic) • devise distinct computationalsystems, i.e. featuring a differentconstraintranking or a different set of rules (or orderingthereof), eachcorresponding to the phonologyobserved in one of the sub-lexica. • relate sub-lexica and the computational system thatwasdesigned for them by means of a diacritic • computational instructions thenmakeselectivereference to sub-lexica.

6. workings of current computational mechanisms example loanwordstrata in Japanese (Itô & Mester 1999) • lexicon • four lexical classes defined by theirdegree of assimilation • native words • establishedloans • assimilatedforeignwords • non-assimilatedforeignwords sub-lexicaidentified by a diacritic • computation: indexedconstraints • FAITH1 • FAITH2 • FAITH3 • FAITH4 in the sameconstraintranking, constraintsapply to specificsub-lexica, the match beingdone by a diacritic.

7. workings of current computational mechanisms implementations • rules cum diacritics: rulesbeardiacritics (and morphemes do) • X → Y / abasub-lexicon A • X → Z / abasub-lexiconB • indexed constraints • different mini-phonologies in the same constraint ranking. • constraints bear diacritics (and morphemes do) • "a single constraint can be multiply instantiated in a constraint hierarchy, and each instantiation may be indexed to apply to a particular set of lexical items. These indexed constraints are universal markedness and faithfulness constraints, whose application is relativized to a set of lexical items." Pater (2009: 125) • Itô & Mester (1999, 2001), Pater (2000, 2009), etc.

8. workings of current computational mechanisms implementations • co-phonologies • different mini-phonologies in different constraint rankings. • constraint rankings bear diacritics (and morphemes do) • Itô & Mester (1995), Orgun (1996), Inkelas (1996, 1998, 1999), Orgun & Inkelas (2002), Anttila (2002), etc.

9. workings of current computational mechanisms implementations

10. Kabyle Berber prepositions • prepositions • g "in" • f "on" • before C-initial words: no gemination of either f or g "when she sits on the little chair" "when she sits in the room"

11. Kabyle Berber prepositions • before V-initial words (FS = Free State) (locality: Mekla) f geminates "On which chair was she sitting ?" g does not geminate "In which house did they wait for him?" since syntactic and phonological contexts are identical, the effect observed must stem from an idiosyncratic difference of the two prepositions. ==> lexically specific phonology

12. Kabyle Berber prepositions • before V-initial words (FS = Free State) f geminates (on the vacant onset) g stays home

13. diatopic variation (based on fieldwork 2015-2017) Algiers M A F IB I B AEH Ch T SET AW AG

14. Kabyle Berber prepositions • f before V-initial words • there are geminating and non-geminating dialects "On which chair was she sitting ?"

15. Kabyle Berber prepositions • g before V-initial words • no gemination in any dialect "In which house did they wait for him?"

16. Kabyle Berber prepositions additional diagnostic: behaviour before w-initial words in Construct State the position of g is colonized by w-

17. Kabyle Berber prepositions additional diagnostic: behaviour before w-initial words in Construct State f "wants" to geminate

18. Kabyle Berber prepositions interim summary • f geminates on vacant onsets, g does not • f colonizes following "weak" w-, g does not • conclusion • f islexicallyspecified to geminatewhenever possible • g has no lexical specification lexical representations f comes with an extra association line that has no syllabic constituent proper but will dock onto an empty onset in case there is one.

19. Kabyle Berber prepositions f is not a lexical geminate obvious analysis: • f is a lexical geminate /ff/ but g is not: /g/ • /ff/ degeminates before C-initial words • w- deletes after /ff/ that does not work in Kabyle Berber the contact of geminates with further consonants is resolved by schwa epenthesis after the geminate.

20. outlook: association under control • association lines represent a potential of autosegmental representations that has largely lied waste. • association of pieces of melody and syllabic constituents is not necessarily automatic • it may be goverend by • the lexicon: melodic items may bear a lexical instruction regarding their associative behaviour • grammar: morphology issues an order, association is a (piece of a) morpheme • socio-linguistics: the socio-linguistic situation decides.

21. outlook: association lines association under morphological control • typical property of templatic morphology • Semitic (e.g. Classical Arabic) • the gemination of the middle consonant of a triconsonantal root may be a morpheme, i.e. the only marker of the grammatical category in question: • C1VC2 VC3 unmarked meaning • C1VC2C2VC3 intensive/iterative meaning ==> C2 receives an "order" to associate

22. outlook: association lines association under sociolinguistic control • French liaison with vs. without enchaînement • Encrevé (1988) • the regular view: association is automatic, i.e. floating consonants will hook onto an empty onset as soon as there is one. peti [t] ami • if the floating C possesses its own position, association cannot be automatic: if it were the floater would always be pronounced peti [t] ami peti *[t] café

23. outlook: association lines association under sociolinguistic control • why should the floating C have its own position? • because of liaison without enchaînement: this is where it is realized optionally in socio-linguistically defined contexts • in case of liaison without enchaînement the initial onset of the following word is typically realized by a glottal stop: • iles [t ʔ] amoureux • the associative behaviour of the floating C is under socio-linguistic control.

24. conclusion • unlike current accounts of lexically-specific phonology, the alternative presented • is representational (rather than computational) • has a uniform computation (rather than a number of distinct computational systems, i.e. mini-phonologies) • has a single lexicon (rather than a number of distinct sub-lexica) • does not use any diacritics • empowers association lines in autosegmental representations, which are not passive or automatic but rather a genuine player in phonology: segments may be instructed how to behave in association by the lexicon, morphology or socio-linguistic parameters.

25. conclusion • We do not contend that all cases of lexically-specific phonology have a representational solution, but the existence of a representational alternative may lead to reconsider a number of cases discussed in the literature.

26. thank you for your attention