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 • 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 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.
Input-Output faithfulness and Output-Output correspondence 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.
1. Reduplication 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 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 Lardil Reduplicant Templates (McCarthy & Prince 1995): Binary feet F F / \ | s s s / \ m m
Reduplication in Lardil 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? • 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 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’
Overapplication 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 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’
Underapplication 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 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. (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.
Why does affixation needs OO-correspondence? 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-correspondence? 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-correspondence? 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.
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: 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 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 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. Prosodic Constraint in French Hypocoristics = F = [s] or [ss'] True hypochoristics: Véronique Véro Dominique Domi, Dom, Do Bénédicte Béné Elisabeth Zabeth, Babé, Babette, Beth
French also has: 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.
IO-Faithfulness >> Prosodic Constraints >> BT-Faithfulness 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 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 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 • 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.
Modified OT (Burzio, to appear) other representations Input –> Grammar –> Output The other representations are forms which are related in terms of morphemic parenthood or of analogy.
Gradient attraction • 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).
Examples • 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.
Segmental alternation: allophony of french 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? 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 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 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 clause 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 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 passive 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 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 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 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 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.