Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Morpheme-specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution . Joe Pater, 2008; in Steve Parker (ed.) Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation . Exceptional triggering and blocking of syncope in Yine – illustrating markedness and faithfulness indexing.
Joe Pater, 2008; in Steve Parker (ed.) Phonological Argumentation:Essays on Evidence and Motivation
The Locality question: morpheme-specific indexing versus other approaches
Indexing and learning viz., indexing as a tool of inconsistency resolution.
ConclusionsOrganisation of the Paper
A theory in which individual morphemes select separate rankings viz., the “cophonology” approach (Anttila 2002)
Faithfulness-only indexing (Fuzakawa 1999 and Ito and Mester 1999 & 2001)
Indexing of faithfulness AND markedness constraints (the present approach)
As will be observed, the present approach is better than the other two for the following reasons:
Its ease in incorporating locality considerations which play a definitive role in MSP’s.
Its ability to distinguish exceptional triggering (through markedness-indexing) and blocking (through faithfulness-indexing).
Its separation of exceptionality and variation which Anttila’s (2002) approach wrongly conflates.Introduction
(i) When there is external evidence for exceptionality (coda retention) the indexing approach captures it with the ranking MaxL >> NoCoda.
(ii) When there is no such evidence (consonant clusters) for exceptionality, the indexing approach disallows it: *Complex >> MaxL
Cophonology: In this approach, which has only one instantiation of a constraint, exceptional and impossible patterns cannot be teased apart.
(i) Exceptional coda retention: reversing the general ranking NoCoda >> Max (viz., Max >> NoCoda).
(ii) Clusters cannot be banned because the system allows just about any sort of re-ranking: there is nothing “inherent” in the system to prevent *Complex >> Max Max >> *Complex.Hypothetical Case 1 contd…
(i) Filters out a rich base based on positive evidence.
(ii) Separates variation from exceptionality without stipulation.
(iii) Distinguishes exceptional triggering from blocking
(iv) Addresses locality effects
(i) Requires a stipulation (like SBC) to rule out spurious rankings.
(ii) Conflates exceptionality and variation in that pairs of constraints which are unranked underlie both variation and exceptional patterns .
(iii) Cannot distinguish exceptional triggering from blocking.
(iv) Cannot deal with localityDifferences between MSI and Cophonology
Kisseberth (1970) (c.f Matteson (1965)
reviews suffix-based syncope in Yine
(formerly Piro) for its implications for a
theory of exceptions in rule-based Phonology.
(a) Those which trigger syncope on the preceding morpheme (details of suffix class omitted): [-lu], [-nu] and [-ya].
(b) Those which fail to trigger syncope: [-ta], (another) [-nu] and [-wa] but themselves undergo it before class (a) suffixes.
(c) Exceptional [-wa] which neither conditions nor undergoes syncope; a homophonous [-wa], however, undergoes syncope when placed before class (a) suffixes.
Align-Suf-C >> Max: syncope
To distinguish the syncope-triggering suffixes from non-triggers, Align-Suf-C (L1) (the indexed version) is created and the triggering suffixes share the index (L1).
Align-Suf-C (L1) >> Max >> Align-Suf-C: Indexed morphemes trigger syncope (Align-Suf-C (L1) >> Max) and unindexed ones do not (Max >> Align-Suf-C).
To distinguish suffixes which undergo syncope from those that do not Max (L2) is created.
Max (L2) >> Align-Suf-C (L1) >> Max >> Align-Suf-C: Morphemes indexed with L2 do not undergo syncope when they follow L1 suffixes but otherwise do.The MSI Analysis:
deletes: [jumala+i+ssa] /jumalissa/;
or mutates to /o/: [tavara+i+ssa] /tavaroissa/;
or displays free variation: [itara+i+ssa] /itaroissa/ ~ /itarissa/.
(1) In Assamese, the front and back mid vowels surface as [e] and [o] (viz., [+ATR]) when followed by high + ATR vowels /u/ or /i/. Elsewhere, the vowels come out as [-ATR] [ɛ] and [ɔ].
(2) The low vowel /a/ is generally opaque to ATR harmony except before the suffixes [-iya] and [-uwa]:
While /a/ normally becomes /o/ before these suffixes (e.g., /sal/ ~ /sol-iya/; /dal/ ~ /dol-iya/), it becomes /e/ when preceded by another /e/ (e.g., /dhemel-iya/).
(3) Mahanta makes use of the markedness constraint*[-ATR][+ATR] to account for general ATR harmony and *[-ATR][+ATR] (L) to account for the exceptional harmonising of /a/ before [-iya] and [-uwa].
(4) Ident (Low) >> *[-ATR][+ATR]: /a/ does not “generally” undergo harmony.
(5) *[-ATR][+ATR](L) >> Ident (Low) >> [-ATR][+ATR]: before [-iya] and [-uwa] which are indexed for *[-ATR][+ATR](L), even /a/ undergoes harmony.
Note: Double lines in the tableaux below indicate that the constraints separated by them are not ranked w. r. t each other.
1) For disyllabic stems, Anttila (2002) attributes the obligatory deletion of (mutation does not occur in this context) stem-final /a/, when there is an /o/ preceding it, to a ban on the co-occurrence of foot-internal round vowels (constraint: OCP/V[rd]φ (OCP for short)).
2) Anttila (2002) – OCP >> Max (his *Del): mutation is not a possibility in this context.
3) MSI - Ident (L3), OCP >> Max (L2) >> Max, Ident: Even if a disyllabic stem is indexed for Max (L2), the stem-final /a/ will undergo deletion (and not mutate to /o/) if there is a preceding /o/ due to the ranking of the constraints in boldface.
4) Tableau below shows that a final /a/ in a disyllabic stem is bound by OCP and is therefore deleted; however, the final vowel in a tri-syllabic stem does not have a foot-internal /o/ preceding it whence it mutates to /o/.
5) Double lines indicate mutual lack of ranking.
6) When the foot-internal vowel preceding /a/ is not /o/, mutation (based on the tri-syllabic case in tableau 5) is expected to be the norm because OCP is irrelevant . However, there is actually free variation in this case: /taita+i/ /taiti/ ~ /taitoi/.
7) To derive default mutation in even-numbered stems (the contra case of OCP-driven deletion), one needs a constraint that applies only to even numbered stems: Pater adopts the constraint OO-Maxφ.
8) OCP/V[rd]φ >> OO-Maxφ, Ident (L3) >> Max (L2) >> Ident, Max:
(a) without pressure from OCP, unindexed (even-numbered) stems will choose mutation (since Ident (L3) is irrelavant) which is the ‘default’ repair in this context;
(b) stems indexed to Ident (L3) will involve free variation (never categorical deletion because of lack of ranking between OO-Maxφ, Ident (L3));
(c) as for tri-syllabic stems, they will choose mutation if they are indexed for Max (L2), deletion if they are indexed for Ident (L3) and free variation when they are unindexed.
Note: 8 (a) and (b) are illustrated in tableau 6 below; 8 (c) in tableau 5 above.
Constraints preferring only winners installed in a stratum
Winner ~ loser data pairs covered by installed constraints removed
Constraints preferring only winners in the remaining data installed in the next stratum
Process repeated until all data are covered; or there are no more constraints preferring only winners in the residue.
Residue the locus of inconsistency.
(a) once the RCD deduces inconsistency, a constraint selecting winners for all instances of some morpheme is indexed with all such morphemes and is installed in a stratum;
(b) the RCD now iterates again, indexing other constraints if required with morphemes for which they choose only winners, until the entire dataset is accounted for.
At first blush, Max can be indexed only for [-wa] because it prefers Ws and Ls for /heta/ as does Align-Suf-C for [-lu] and [-nu].
Once the data pairs where Max (L1) chooses only winners are removed, Align-Suf-C chooses only winners for [-lu] with which it can be indexed.
The next slide shows the installation of constraints in stratified fashion:
(iii) Even if it is plausible for the learner to restructure the input such that a faithfulness constraint is allowed to then choose the correct output, no currently extant learnability proposal accommodates such a provision.