Output output correspondence
Download
1 / 65

Output-output correspondence - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 324 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Output-output correspondence' - paul2


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Output output correspondence l.jpg
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 correspondence2 l.jpg
Output-output correspondence

  • Output-output correspondence was introduced by McCarthy & Prince (1995) to account for morphologically-based phonological effects.

  • Instead of taking an input as a reference, a morphological operation applies to a ready output, a form which has already been through phonology.

  • Faithfulness to input is ranked differently than correspondence between two outputs.


Output output correspondence3 l.jpg
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.


Slide4 l.jpg

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.


Input output faithfulness and output output correspondence l.jpg
Input-Output faithfulness and Output-Output correspondence relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

Input

(full model)

F C

Output1 Output2

Prediction of the Correspondence Theory

IO-Faith >> Prosodic Constraints >> OO-Faith/Corr

or

OO-Faith/Corr >> Prosodic Constraints >> IO-Faith

Relations betw. Input and Output2 are assumed to be rare.


Correspondence l.jpg
Correspondence relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:


1 reduplication l.jpg
1. Reduplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

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)

s

/ \

m m


Reduplication in ilokano l.jpg
Reduplication in Ilokano relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

Reduplicant consists of a closed syllable

tra.ba.ho trab - tra.ba.ho ‘work’

Red Stem

Reduplicant consists of a syllable with a long vowel

ró÷ot ro: - ró÷ot ‘litter’

Red Stem


Reduplication l.jpg
Reduplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

Lardil Reduplicant Templates (McCarthy & Prince 1995): Binary feet

F F

/ \ |

s s s

/ \

m m


Reduplication in lardil l.jpg
Reduplication in Lardil relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

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’


Why does reduplication needs oo correspondence l.jpg
Why does reduplication needs OO-correspondence? relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

  • In some languages, the segmental make-up (so-called melody, a misnomer) of the reduplicant copies the segmental make-up of the full form, rather than taking its raw material from the input. Two cases:

    - 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)


Overapplication l.jpg
Overapplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

In Javanese, there is a process of h-deletion taking place intervocally:

Javanese h-deletion

Root Root+my Root+Dem.

an´h an´h-ku an´-e ‘strange’

arah arah-ku ara-e ‘direction’


Overapplication13 l.jpg
Overapplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

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’


Underapplication l.jpg
Underapplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

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’


Underapplication15 l.jpg
Underapplication relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

In reduplication, though the vowel of the reduplicant is always [i], no palatalization takes place. The consonant of the base is faithfully copied.

Reduplication

ki-ka÷ *t∫i-ka÷ ‘bite’

hi-haw÷ *çi-haw÷ ‘trouble’


2 different levels of affixation l.jpg
2. Different levels of affixation relation takes its substance from a series of constraints implementing the kind of relation needed in each case:

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


Slide17 l.jpg

- 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.


Slide18 l.jpg

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.


Why does affixation needs oo correspondence l.jpg
Why does affixation needs OO-correspondence? 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).

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.

Some examples:


Why does affixation needs oo correspondence20 l.jpg
Why does affixation needs OO-correspondence? 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).

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˜]


Why does affixation needs oo correspondence21 l.jpg
Why does affixation needs OO-correspondence? 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).

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:

æ-tensing (*æC]s)

This constraint cannot be ranked as to deliver all forms properly.


Slide22 l.jpg

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.


Slide24 l.jpg

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


3 hypochoristics l.jpg
3. Hypochoristics correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above

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]


Slide29 l.jpg

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


Slide30 l.jpg

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']

True hypochoristics:

Véronique Véro

Dominique Domi, Dom, Do

Bénédicte Béné

Elisabeth Zabeth, Babé, Babette, Beth


Slide31 l.jpg

French also has: correspondence to related outputs, in the examples above

Reduplications (Echo-words) = [s s']

/\

(C)V

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.


Slide32 l.jpg

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 …


Slide33 l.jpg

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.


Slide34 l.jpg

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.


Slide35 l.jpg

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.


Gradient attraction l.jpg
Gradient attraction unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

  • If output output correspondence is needed anyway, why not treat all kinds of morphological relationships as output-output correpondences?

  • This is the step taken by Burzio (to appear) in his Gradient Attraction theory.

  • Burzio claims that similar (output) representations attract each other and that they do so gradiently. The more similar they are, the greater the attraction.


Slide37 l.jpg

Modified OT unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high. (Burzio, to appear)

other representations

Input –> Grammar –> Output

The other representations are forms which are related in terms of morphemic parenthood or of analogy.


Slide38 l.jpg

Gradient attraction unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

  • Allomorphs consist to a large extent of the same segmental material and have (partly) the same semantic representation.

  • But they also contrast with each other in order to keep their distinctness (Flemming’s dispersion theory)

  • Gradient attraction is different from output-output correspondence. One of the reasons os that allophonic variations of complex words can be triggered not only by the stem but also by the affix(es).


Slide39 l.jpg

Examples unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

  • Stress position 1: titánic is attracted not only by títan but also by barbáric and dynámic

  • Stress position 2: módernist is influenced by módern and not by the one of modérnity, because -ist adjoins only to adjectival bases.


Slide40 l.jpg

  • Segmental alternation: allophony of french unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.gros, grosse and gros ‘fat’ with liaison.

  • According to Burzio, the third form is attracted by both other forms, takes its vowel quality from the feminine form and its consonant from the masculine (both facts are unfortunately wrong! The vowel quality is always the same, and the liaison consonant is voiced.)

  • Steriade cites a much better example also from French: an adjective like ancien ‘old’ has three allomorphs: [ãsj´]~, [ãsj´n] and [ãsj´~n]. The liaison case takes ist vowel quality from the masculine and ist vowel from the feminine.


Oo correspondence in syntax l.jpg

OO-Correspondence in Syntax? 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

coordinate structures


Syntax morphology interaction l.jpg

Syntax-Morphology Interaction unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Case rules for the active clause l.jpg

Case rules for the active clause unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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

+Uniqueness, etc.


Case rules for the active clause44 l.jpg

Case rules for the active clause unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

Er kommt nom

he comes

er sieht ihn nom acc

he sees him

er gibt ihr es nom dat acc

he gives it to her


Case rules in the passive l.jpg

Case rules in the passive unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Case rules in the passive46 l.jpg

Case rules in the passive unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

A possible account:

Maximize faithfulness between the active and the corresponding passive!

(00-correspondence)

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


Case rules in other constructions l.jpg

Case rules in other constructions unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

Similar ideas can be applied to

Complex predicates (retaining the Case of the preposition)

jemanden anwinken

someone.acc at-wave

jemandem zuwinken

someone.dat to-wave

but ... is this OO?


Case agreement 1 l.jpg

Case agreement 1 unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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 2 l.jpg

Case agreement 2 unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Case agreement 3 l.jpg

Case agreement 3 unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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.


Case agreement in ecm contexts l.jpg

Case agreement in ECM-contexts unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Case agreement in ecm contexts52 l.jpg

Case agreement in ECM-contexts unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Case agreement in ecm contexts53 l.jpg

Case agreement in ECM-contexts unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

Solution 1:

OO-Correspondence between the finite clause and the infinitive

Solution 2:

Case determination before nom > acc change in the subject position of the infinitive


Summary l.jpg

Summary unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

The Case effects described so far may either be interpreted as being due to

OO-correspondence

lexical determination of Case, followed by a syntax-triggered change

more complex Case rules


Parallelism in coordinate structures l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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.


Parallelism in coordinate structures56 l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

Scope is a very interesting example for this.

Independent

I introduced one of the boys to every teacher

is scope-ambiguous:

ONE > EVERY

EVERY > ONE


Parallelism in coordinate structures57 l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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!


Parallelism in coordinate structures58 l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

More examples

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.


Parallelism in coordinate structures59 l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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.


Parallelism in coordinate structures60 l.jpg

Parallelism in coordinate structures unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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.


A special form of oo correspondence l.jpg

A special form of OO-correspondence unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

Perhaps, quite a different concept of OO-correspondence is called for in syntax ...

Many syntactic approaches assume more than one level of representation ...

Surface structure

Logical Form

Argument Structure


A special form of oo correspondence62 l.jpg

A special form of OO-correspondence unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

It has been observed that UG tries to minimize differences between these levels.

This „economy of derivation“ may reflect OO-correspondence between different levels.


A special form of oo correspondence63 l.jpg

A special form of OO-correspondence unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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)


Mlc 1 l.jpg

MLC 1 unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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


Mlc 2 l.jpg

MLC 2 unmarked form has no chance to emerge, since all kinds of inputs are there, and faithfulness is high.

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 ...


ad