Output-output correspondence Phonology-morphology interface Level-related affixation Reduplication Hypochoristics Gradient attraction Syntax-morphology interface Case Passive morphology ECM constructions Coordinate structures Output-output correspondence
Definition of Correspondence (McCarthy & Prince 1995:262):
Given two strings S1 and S2, correspondence is a relation R between the elements of S1 and those of S2. When a R b, the elements a of S1 and b of S2 are called correspondents of each other.
The notion of correspondence is vague. The correspon-dence relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:
MAX (no deletion), DEP (no epenthesis)
Additional constraints are:
IDENT(F), LINEARITY (saying something about the ordering of the elements) CONTIGUITY (saying something about the adjacency of elements), ANCHOR-Edge (about the edges of the corresponding elements), HEAD-MATCH (if one of the correspondent has a head, its correspondent has the same head), etc.
Prediction of the Correspondence Theory
IO-Faith >> Prosodic Constraints >> OO-Faith/Corr
OO-Faith/Corr >> Prosodic Constraints >> IO-Faith
Relations betw. Input and Output2 are assumed to be rare.
Reduplication is a morphological operation (often plural, iterative, habituative, intensifier …) consisting in copying (reduplicating part or whole of a stem). According to McCarthy & Prince, only ‘authentic’ prosodic constituents (syllables, feet, prosodic words…) can be reduplicants.
Ilokano Reduplicant Template: Heavy syllable (McCarthy & Prince 1995)
Reduplicant consists of a closed syllable
tra.ba.ho trab - tra.ba.ho ‘work’
Reduplicant consists of a syllable with a long vowel
ró÷ot ro: - ró÷ot ‘litter’
Lardil Reduplicant Templates (McCarthy & Prince 1995): Binary feet
/ \ |
s s s
Reduplicant consists of two syllables
[kele-th] kele kele-kele ‘to cut’
[pareli-th] pareli parel-pareli ‘to gather’
Reduplicant consists of a heavy syllable
[la-th] latha laa-la ‘to guide’
[˜aali-th] ˜aali ˜aal-˜aali ‘to be thirsty’
- overapplication: a phonological process has seemed to apply, though its context of application is not visible at the surface (non-surface apparent)
- underapplication: a phonological process does not apply, though its context of application is present at the surface (non-surface true)
In Javanese, there is a process of h-deletion taking place intervocally:
Root Root+my Root+Dem.
an´h an´h-ku an´-e ‘strange’
arah arah-ku ara-e ‘direction’
In reduplication this process takes also place in environements other than intervocalic. The phonological result of h-deletion is copied from the base to the reduplicant.
Reduplication: Overapplication of h-deletion
bedah bedah-bedah beda-beda-e ‘broken’
dajøh dajøh-dajøh dajø-dajø-e ‘guest’
In Akan, there is a process of palatalization. Coronals are affricated before a front vowel, and /h/ is realized as a palatal fricative.
Palatalization in Akan
t∫´ *k´ ‘divide’
dΩe *de ‘receive’
çi *hi ‘border’
In reduplication, though the vowel of the reduplicant is always [i], no palatalization takes place. The consonant of the base is faithfully copied.
ki-ka÷ *t∫i-ka÷ ‘bite’
hi-haw÷ *çi-haw÷ ‘trouble’
It has been observed that affixes appear in a certain order, and that they behave as classes of affixes w.r.t. this property.
In English, besides other morphological operations like compounding and inflection, two levels of derivational affixation have been described.
- Level I affixes which influence the phonology of the stem: -ic, -ation, -al
- Level II affixes which do not: -less, -ness, -y, -ing
- Level II affixes are peripheral to Level I affixes. relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:
(but see Fabb 1988 who showed that more restrictions are at play than just ordering)
To account for this, Kiparsky, Mohanan and others developed a model of Lexical Phonology, in which morphology and phonology are interleaved:
Some morphology applies (level I affixation), then phonology. Phonology consists of a set of ordered rules.
After completion of phonology, some more morphology applies (level II affixation), then the whole phonology applies again.
Level II phonology has no access to morphological information provided at earlier levels (and vice-versa): we thus have a cyclic model of the morphology-phonology interactions (but see Mohanan who allows loops in Malayalam).
When all levels have been completed (there may be more than two), the so-called post-lexical phonology applies, which is the sentence-level phonology. This phonology is automatic, applies in all contexts, and doesn’t care about levels. Final Devoicing in German is an example of this type.
OT has problems with the results of Lexical Phonology.
It can replace the set of ordered rules inside of each level, but the levels themselves are more difficult to account for.
Level ordering of affixes (Benua 1995): New York-Philadelphia dialects (æ-tensing: E is tense)
UnaffixedClass 1 AffixClass 2 Affix
class [klEs] classic [klæ.sik] classy [klE.si]
mass [mEs] massive [mæ.sˆv] massable [mæ.s-]
pass [pEs] passive [pæ.sˆv] passing [pæ.sˆ˜]
A standard kind of OT cannot account for the different vowel in the stem of these words, due to the different kind of affixation.
The alternation between the two kinds of vowels is due to syllabification: Benua has the following constraint:
This constraint cannot be ranked as to deliver all forms properly.
Benua (1995) proposes to account for level II affixes with correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above class, pass, and so on.
Level I affixes take the input as input, and level II affixes take the output of class and pass as inputs.
The faithfulness to the output, when relevant, is assumed to be greater than the faithfulness to the input. This explains why level II affixes do not trigger much phonological changes in the stem.
A second example of Benua: correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above
condemn/ condemnation / condemning
-ation is a class 1 suffix and takes the input as base
-ing is a class 2 suffix and takes the output as base
A third kind of morphological process for which OO-correspondence has been assumed is hypochoristic formation.
A first example comes from the i-formation in German which consist of a syllabic trochee, the unmarked (but not the minimal foot) of German:
Prosodic Constraint on German i-formations
i-formations = F = [s's]
Katharína –> Káthi Tóm –>Tómmi correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above
Bénjamin –> Bénni Úlrich –> Úlli
Klínsmann –> Klínsi Hirn –> Hirni
Andréas –> Ándi Gabriéle –> Gábi
Mánfred –> Mánni Wáltraud –> Wálli
Wílhelm –> Wílli Cornélia –> Cónni
Wést/Ostdeutscher –> Wéssi / Óssi
Many languages build hypochoristics in a similar way. correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above
Prosodic Constraint in French
Hypocoristics = F = [s] or [ss']
Dominique Domi, Dom, Do
Elisabeth Zabeth, Babé, Babette, Beth
French also has: correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above
Reduplications (Echo-words) = [s s']
père –> pépère, ours –> nounours, main –> main-main
The input to these reduplications is a monosyllabic word.
But the syllabification is not part of the input: it is an added structure pointing to the fact that these reduplications are faithful to an output rather than to an input.
IO-Faithfulness >> Prosodic Constraints >> BT-Faithfulness correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above
The emergence of the unmarked (TETU) is a landmark of this pattern. The prosodic constraints in the middle are responsible for the unmarked pattern of the language: bisyllabic foot, trochaic pattern, open syllables …
If the relation between input and output is active, the unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.
But the forms entering the relation OO have a chance to emerge as unmarked, since the prosodic constraints are higher.
Trochaic feet (iambic in the case of French, open syllables and the like) emerge.
Conclusion and open problems unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.
1. Since correspondence is a vague notion, all kinds of forms should be able to enter into a correspondence relation. How can we delimit the desirable correspondence relations from the undesirable ones?
2. OO-constraints lead to an explosion of the constraints.
3. OO-correspondence needs an existing output in order to be workable. In some cases, surface forms seem to be faithful to a form which is never realized as an output. In those cases, we have opacity.
Conclusion and open problems unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.
4. Lexical Phonology, as well as all models using ordered rules have no problems with opacity. The existence of intermediate forms, neither inputs nor outputs, is a natural consequence of rule ordering.
5. OT has big problems with those. Since no derivation enters phonology, no intermediate step should ever be needed.
6. We will see later on that alternative solutions have been offered to the opacity problem.
Modified OT unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high. (Burzio, to appear)
Input –> Grammar –> Output
The other representations are forms which are related in terms of morphemic parenthood or of analogy.
Gradient attraction unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.
Examples unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.
With syntax, there seems to be little compelling evidence for the need for output-output correspondence.
Possible evidence for OO-correspondence in the syntax comes from at least two domains:
the syntax-morphology interaction
Alternations that affect grammatical functions tend to minimize differences among the various construction types
In a representational model, this suggests an influence of OO-correspondence.
One case in point is the rule for Case marking in the German passive
Nom: NPs bear nominative case
Acc: NPs that are not the highest argument bear accusative case
Dat: NPs that are neither the highest nor the lowest argument bear dative case
Er kommt nom
er sieht ihn nom acc
he sees him
er gibt ihr es nom dat acc
he gives it to her
What we find:
Es wird ihr gegeben
it-nom is her-dat given
What we should get:
*sie wird es gegeben
she-nom is it given
A possible account:
Maximize faithfulness between the active and the corresponding passive!
The Alternative: Rule Ordering
1. Case potential is determined
e.g. by a lexical rule
2. „Absorption“ of the accusative
e.g. late in the syntax
Similar ideas can be applied to
Complex predicates (retaining the Case of the preposition)
but ... is this OO?
ECM-constructions and Case Agreement interact in a fashion that may also be understood in terms of OO-correspondence
Case Agreement of some predicate nominals
Ich bin ein Esel
I-nom am a-nom donkey
ich bleibe ein Esel
I-nom remain a-nom donkey
Case Agreement of adverbials
er grüsst die Männer einen nach dem anderen
he greets the-acc men one-acc after the other
die Männer grüssen ihn einer nach dem anderen
the men greet him one-nom after the other
Predicates and some adverbs may take over the Case of the noun phrase they are linked to in terms of semantics ...
For ECM-constructions, we expect Case agreeing expressions to always take over the Case of the NP they are linked to.
But there seem to be two dialects:
1. Ich lasse ihn einen Helden sein
I let him-acc an-acc hero be
2. Ich lasse ihn ein Held sein
I let him-acc an-nom hero-nom be
1. Agreement maintained
2. Nominative maintained
1. Ich lasse die Männer einen nach dem anderen ankommen
I have the men one-acc after the other arrive
2. Ich lasse die Männer einer nach dem anderen ankommen
I have the men one-nom after the other arrive
OO-Correspondence between the finite clause and the infinitive
Case determination before nom > acc change in the subject position of the infinitive
The Case effects described so far may either be interpreted as being due to
lexical determination of Case, followed by a syntax-triggered change
more complex Case rules
It may thus make more sense to look at a construction type that bears some vague resemblance to reduplication --- conjunctions.
In principle, the two parts of a coordination construction are fairly independent of each other ...
.... this changes when they are affected by a reduction operation.
Scope is a very interesting example for this.
I introduced one of the boys to every teacher
ONE > EVERY
EVERY > ONE
I introduced one of the boys to every teacher, and Bill did, too
involving a reducing coordination, is
two-ways ambiguous, NOT four ways, as one might expect!
an American runner seems to have won a gold medal, and a Russian athlete does, too
the two indefinite NPs agree w.r.t. specificity
one guard was seen in front of every building, and a policeman was, too.
In an ellipsis/coordination reduction construction, the scope relations among the elements in clause A must be identical to the ones in clause B.
In the Y-model of grammar, in which
phonology and semantics do not communicate, this is difficult to account for.
Across-the-board rule application was invented in order to account for such facts.
Who did you meet t and invite t
The parallelism facts fit neatly into OO-correspondence, however.
Perhaps, quite a different concept of OO-correspondence is called for in syntax ...
Many syntactic approaches assume more than one level of representation ...
It has been observed that UG tries to minimize differences between these levels.
This „economy of derivation“ may reflect OO-correspondence between different levels.
From a single input, two, three or more of such representations are generated.
Minimal Link (=superiority) effects may reflect the attempt to minimize structural differences between lor.s (Müller, Williams)
Who do you expect to say what
*what do you expect who to say
More relations of the pre-movement/declarative structure are preserved in the former example
koj kogo mišliš who what saw
In the clitic (Wackernagel) position
weil er es ihr gibt
because he it her gives
pronoun order has been claimed to be identical to base order ...