1. MPhil seminar Evaluating OT Iterativity and cyclicity *laköd  srnar laköds  rnar laköd  sr  na r laköds  r  na r laköd  s  rna r *laködsrnar laköd  s  r  nar *laködsr  nar

2. Introduction Today: multiple application: iterativity and cyclicity Today: multiple application: iterativity and cyclicity Larger point: need for abstract intermediate stages of representation and computation Larger point: need for abstract intermediate stages of representation and computation  McCarthy claims that OT is only a theory of constraint ranking and says nothing about number of levels, etc., but one of its main points of appeal was the elimination of abstract stages of derivation  Orgun: “serial derivations are cognitively implausible”  McCarthy and Prince 1993:145 stress parallelism as central tenet of OT  Itô and Mester 1997:419 “there is no sequential phonological derivation in the sense of traditional generative phonology. There is no set of rules and operations applying in a certain order; there are also no cyclic derivations, in the sense that phonological operations first apply only within the smallest morphological domains available and work upwards through a series of more and more inclusive morphological domains.”  The facts of iterativity and cyclicity show that such stages are in fact necessary.

3. Cyclic & iterative effects Ways in which a rule can apply 2+ discrete times to a single form Ways in which a rule can apply 2+ discrete times to a single form  directional iterative application within a single level/cycle  cycle/multiple levels of derivation These two cases have been treated separately in the recent literature, but bear certain important similarities. These two cases have been treated separately in the recent literature, but bear certain important similarities.

4. Cyclic & iterative effects Classic iterative phenomena (Yip 1992): Classic iterative phenomena (Yip 1992):  Alternating stress  Vowel harmony  Tone spreading OT has means for handling these (e.g. Align constraints), but not more complicated types: OT has means for handling these (e.g. Align constraints), but not more complicated types:  Basic iterativity crucially referring to intermediate intralevel representations  Abkhaz stress assignment and clash deletion  Cyclic iterativity  Itelmen epenthesis  Piro vowel deletion My own feeling is that anything I’ve done in the study of language or in other fields is hardly more than the application of normal standards of rationality, which have been taken for granted in the natural sciences for centuries, to phenomena in these fields. When you do, some things are immediately obvious. For example, it's immediately obvious that language involves a discrete infinity of constructions, that grammar involves iterative rules of several types. That is where the serious work begins...(Chomsky 1983)

5. Basic iterativity Abkhaz stress assignment (Dybo 1977, Wolfe 2000) Abkhaz stress assignment (Dybo 1977, Wolfe 2000)  Assign word stress to leftmost (underlying) accented syllable not followed by another accented syllable; otherwise stress falls on the final syllable accented rootunaccented root a-pa-ráto pleatá-pa-rato jump a-ja-ráto lie downá-fa-rato eat a-tsa-ráto goá-ta-rato give madzasecret á-madzadef.-secret madzá-k’secret- indef.

6.  Basic iterativity Iterative L  R clash deletion: *  Ø / _ * (Line 1) Iterative L  R clash deletion: *  Ø / _ * (Line 1) a-pa-rá ‘to pleat’ vs. á-pa-ra ‘to jump’ a-pa-rá ‘to pleat’ vs. á-pa-ra ‘to jump’ Line 2 Line 1 Line 0 a-pa-rá á-pa-ra Line 1 left-headed  Project lexical accents Project stress-bearing elements

7. Basic iterativity Iterative clash deletion produces edgemost effects (rightmost member of a sequence of accents survives), but the domain (accent sequence) is not a prosodic constituent Iterative clash deletion produces edgemost effects (rightmost member of a sequence of accents survives), but the domain (accent sequence) is not a prosodic constituent In DP the effect is completely straightforward: having an abstract derivation allows local stepwise computation In DP the effect is completely straightforward: having an abstract derivation allows local stepwise computation This type of iterative effect therefore is not amenable to interpretation in terms of OT constraints (what about CLASH?) This type of iterative effect therefore is not amenable to interpretation in terms of OT constraints (what about CLASH?)what about CLASHwhat about CLASH  In OT we expect V V V to produce *V V V (e.g. á-pa-ra), not V V V  The opaque interactions involved occur within a single level of derivation   McCarthy 2002:172 “within-level opacity, if it exists, will present exactly the same problems for OT-LP as it does for classic OT.”   Can’t be attributed to paradigmatic pressures.  What about a cross-level constraint “do not have a bracket in an output form when its correspondent in the input is adjacent to another bracket”?   McCarthy 2002:36—“classical markedness constraints cannot refer to the input, and so they are unable to make a distinction between new and inherited violations”   NB McCarthy’s Comparative Markedness theory may retreat to this, but it’s not clear if he still believes in this theory

8. Cyclic iterativity A process can apply only once within a given domain, yet apply repeatedly within a word (or phrase) by virtue of being cyclic A process can apply only once within a given domain, yet apply repeatedly within a word (or phrase) by virtue of being cyclic OT attempts to explain away cyclic effects: OT attempts to explain away cyclic effects:  Align constraints  Output-Output (OO) constraints Problems: Problems:  Itelmen epenthesis: neither Align nor OO works  Uyghur: morphologically-based cycle required (Orgun)  Staged exceptionality  Piro vowel deletion: exceptionality parallels cyclicity  Segmental exceptionality  Cyclic variable rules

9. Itelmen Ø   / {C, #} _ R{C, #} Ø   / {C, #} _ R{C, #}  x  m sable  xm-  /nsable-pl sp  l wind spl-ank wind-loc wtX  z-x/alroad-ablwtXz -enk road-loc Paleo-Siberian (Bobaljik 1999) nouns

10. Itelmen a. t- tXzu -s- kitSen a. t- tXzu -s- kitSen1sg-stand-pres-1sg ‘I am standing’ b.  eru -z-in b.  eru -z-ingripe-pres-3sg ‘she gripes’ c.  -qzu-z-in c.  -qzu-z-inbe-asp-pres-3sg ‘she is’ d. t’-il:-  s- kitSen d. t’-il:-  s- kitSen1sg-drink-pres-1sg ‘I am drinking’ e. il:-  z-in e. il:-  z-indrink-pres-3sg ‘he drinks’ f. sp  l:-  zi-in f. sp  l:-  zi-inwindy-pres-3sg ‘it is windy’ verbs

11. Itelmen cyclicnon-cyclic a. spl + -ank[[spl]ank]spl-ank cycle 1 [sp  l] cycle 2 [[sp  l]ank] OUTPUT *sp  lank splank b. spl + pres. + 3sg[[[spl]z]in]spl-z-in cycle 1 [sp  l] cycle 2 [[sp  l]  z] cycle 3 [[[sp  l]  z]in] OUTPUT sp  l  zin *sp  lzin, *spl  zin nouns verbs Conclusion: epenthesis must be cyclic in verbs but noncyclic in nouns Conclusion: epenthesis must be cyclic in verbs but noncyclic in nouns OT deals with cyclic effects of this type via OO constraints OT deals with cyclic effects of this type via OO constraints  Problem: nouns have bare forms, verbs don’t; OOT  predicts opposite of what we find

12. Qashgar Uyghur Orgun 1996 Orgun 1996 Vowels raise in morpheme-final open syllables Vowels raise in morpheme-final open syllables kala ‘ cow ’ kal  ­  a ‘ cow ­ dative ’ tuXa ‘ chicken ’ tuX  ­ dan ‘ chicken ­ ablative ’ qazan ‘ pot ’ qaz  n ­ i ‘ pot ­ possessive ’ bala ‘ child ’ bal  ­ si ‘ child ­ possessive ’ ana ‘ mother ’ an  ­ lar ‘ mother ­ plural ’ ameriqa ‘ America ’ ameriq  ­ da ‘ America ­ locative ’

13. Qashgar Uyghur High vowels delete between two open syllables when flanked by identical consonants High vowels delete between two open syllables when flanked by identical consonants  qaz  n-i-ni  qaz  nni ‘ pot-possessive-accusative ’ The number of phonological cycles crucially depends on the morphological structure of the form: The number of phonological cycles crucially depends on the morphological structure of the form:  i)qazan + i  qaz  ni  ii) qazan + ni  qazanni  iii) qazan + i + ni  qaz  nni (*qazanni) elision counterbleeds raising  iv) bala + lar  bal  lar (*ballar) raising counterfeeds elision  v) bala + lar + i  ball  ri (*bal  l  ri) raising feeds elision  vi) bala + lar + ni  ballarni raising feeds elision  vii)bala + lar + i + ni  ball  r  ni raising feeds elision  viii) ana + ni  an  ni (*anni) raising counterfeeds elision

14. Qashgar Uyghur raising counterfeeds deletion on the cycle raising counterfeeds deletion on the cycle if raising feeds elisionif raising counterfeeds elision if raising feeds elisionif raising counterfeeds elision M: bala + lar + ni bala + lar bala + lar + ni bala + lar M: bala + lar + ni bala + lar bala + lar + ni bala + lar W: bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar W: bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar P: bal + lar + ni *bal + lar *bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar P: bal + lar + ni *bal + lar *bal  + lar + ni bal  + lar ‘pot­poss­acc’‘child­pl­acc’ ‘child­pl’ ‘pot­poss­acc’‘child­pl­acc’ ‘child­pl’ Cycle 1input qazan­i bala­lar bala­lar Cycle 1input qazan­i bala­lar bala­lar output qaz  n­i bal  ­lar bal  ­lar output qaz  n­i bal  ­lar bal  ­lar Cycle 2 input qaz  ni­ni bal  lar­ni— Cycle 2 input qaz  ni­ni bal  lar­ni— output qaz  n­ni ballar­ni — output qaz  n­ni ballar­ni — Surface [qaz  nni] [ballarni] [bal  lar] Surface [qaz  nni] [ballarni] [bal  lar] The fatal flaw in the Harmonic Phonology approach is that every form undergoes the same number of applications of phonology, regardless of the morphological structure. The fatal flaw in the Harmonic Phonology approach is that every form undergoes the same number of applications of phonology, regardless of the morphological structure. Alignment does not give us a way to analyze these data noncyclically, since the accusative suffix ­ni adds nothing to the environment for elision; all it does is cause an additional phonological cycle. Alignment does not give us a way to analyze these data noncyclically, since the accusative suffix ­ni adds nothing to the environment for elision; all it does is cause an additional phonological cycle.

15. Piro V  Ø / VC _ + CV V  Ø / VC _ + CV  yimaka‘teach’yimak-lu‘teaching’  xipalu‘sweet potato’n-xipal-ne‘my sweet potato’ some suffixes (e.g. verbal theme formative -ta, abstract noun formative -nu) don’t trigger deletion: some suffixes (e.g. verbal theme formative -ta, abstract noun formative -nu) don’t trigger deletion:  hata-ta ‘to illuminate’ vs. hat-nu ‘light, shining’  heta-nu ‘going to see’ vs. het-lu ‘to see it’ Though -ta and -nu fail to trigger V-deletion, they regularly undergo it: Though -ta and -nu fail to trigger V-deletion, they regularly undergo it:  yono-t-na-wa ‘to paint oneself’  heta-n-ru ‘going to see him’ How to account for this type of phenomenon? How to account for this type of phenomenon? Arawakan, Peru (Matteson 1965, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977:397-8)

16. Piro Proposal in 70s Derivational Phonology: have both trigger and target diacritics (Dell and Selkirk 1976, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977) Proposal in 70s Derivational Phonology: have both trigger and target diacritics (Dell and Selkirk 1976, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977)  Another possibility: deletion cyclic, exceptional morphemes non-cyclic (a la Halle-Vergnaud 1987) UR/hata-nu//heta-nu//heta-nu-ru/ [-trigger del ] [-trigger del ] V-del.— — — V-del.hat-nu — — V-del. — —heta-n-ru SR[hatnu][hetanu][hetanru] cycle 1 cycle 2 cycle 3

17. Can this effect be captured in a monostratal model? Can this effect be captured in a monostratal model?  Featural prespecification  Cophonologies specified by individual morphemes OT predicts only the (odd) Lakhota effect (Patterson ‘88): OT predicts only the (odd) Lakhota effect (Patterson ‘88): a. K  T S / i [stem _ V in active transitive verbs k h uteto shoot ma - k h utehe shoots at me ni - tS h utehe shoots at you tS h i - tS h uteI shoot at you b. benefactive suffix ki- does not trigger palatalization (142) k h uwato chase ka  ato make ki - k h uwahe chased it for him ki-ka  ahe made it for him c. If benefactive itself undergoes palatalization, it triggers palatalization k h uwato chase wa - ki - k h uwaI chased it for him ni-tSi-tSHuwahe chased it for you Piro

18. Segmental exceptionality Assume, for example, that a hypothetical language has a rule of palatalization before front vowels, but also has a morpheme -aki- that is specified as an exception to this rule. Assume, for example, that a hypothetical language has a rule of palatalization before front vowels, but also has a morpheme -aki- that is specified as an exception to this rule. Can OT account for a form such as k y ikar-aki (as opposed to *[k y ikarak y i]) without recourse to levels of derivation? Can OT account for a form such as k y ikar-aki (as opposed to *[k y ikarak y i]) without recourse to levels of derivation?  Harmonic Serialism? (discussed later)

19. Variable rules Guy 1991, etc.; Bayley 1997 Guy 1991, etc.; Bayley 1997  greater incidence of cluster reduction in monomorphemes (past) than in bimorphemes (passed)  t/d deletion treated as variable cyclic rule  prediction: exponential relation between rates of deletion in monomorphemes, semiweak verbs (leave/left), and regular past tense verbs

20. Summary of OT problems with staged processes Fail to generalize over all cyclic effects Fail to generalize over all cyclic effects  Kager's analysis of iterative unstressed vowel deletion  Alderete's analysis of Russian stress Predicts the existence of effects where affixes determine the selection of roots, and other anti-cyclic effects Predicts the existence of effects where affixes determine the selection of roots, and other anti-cyclic effects Cannot generate level-internal iterativity (Abkhaz) Cannot generate level-internal iterativity (Abkhaz) Cannot produce exponential effect of variable rules Cannot produce exponential effect of variable rules Affixes and rules fall into two classes in English and many other languages Affixes and rules fall into two classes in English and many other languages  easily captured with [cyclic] and/or levels  monostratal OT has to stipulate many different rerankings

21. Can OT be repaired? One possibility: a form of serial evaluation that proceeds segment-by-segment through a word One possibility: a form of serial evaluation that proceeds segment-by-segment through a word  Requires that all candidates be evaluated one segment at a time  Not always obvious which segments in a given pair of candidates are to be compared (e.g. in candidates with epenthesis or deletion)  Would wrongly rule out candidates with early violations in favor of other candidates with more but later violations  Encounters problems with chain shifts and other opacity effects (McCarthy 1999)  see Riggle, Local Optionality, for further OT discussion Conclusion: OT does not provide a satisfactory account for all types of staged/iterative effects: Conclusion: OT does not provide a satisfactory account for all types of staged/iterative effects:  The phonological component must refer to abstract intermediate stages of derivation.  It is not enough to posit levels à la LPMOT; Abkhaz shows that intermediate stages of computation based solely on segmental context are also required, and Uyghur shows that cycles have to refer to morphemes, not more general levels.

22. Sequential iterativity If rules can be [  optional] and [  iterative], we predict the existence of a nuanced type of optionality wherein both options can appear within a single word If rules can be [  optional] and [  iterative], we predict the existence of a nuanced type of optionality wherein both options can appear within a single word  Without these variables (e.g. in OT) we predict only all-or-nothing optionality, as in Warao labial voicing (Howard 1972:87): /p/ optionally surfaces as [b], but if it does then all p’s in the word must surface as [b] ([papa] ~ [baba] (*[paba])) Optional allophony in free variation Optional allophony in free variation  English reduced vowel [V] ~ [  ] ~ [  ]  Predictions for Winnepesaukee: DP: [wInIpIs  ki] ~ [wInIp  s  ki] ~ [wIn  pIs  ki] ~ [wIn  p  s  ki] DP: [wInIpIs  ki] ~ [wInIp  s  ki] ~ [wIn  pIs  ki] ~ [wIn  p  s  ki] OT: [wInIpIs  ki] ~ [wIn  p  s  ki] OT: [wInIpIs  ki] ~ [wIn  p  s  ki]  flapping, glottalization in English  sentimentality[sER  mEntHQl  Ri] ~ [sEntH  mEntHQl  Ri] ~ [sER  mEntHQl  tHi] Optional r-deletion in English Optional r-deletion in English  Marv Albert produced [h  p  ] for Harper  Bostonian anthropologist produced [m  d  d] for murdered Optional s-epenthesis in Dominican Spanish (Núñez Cedeño 1988) Optional s-epenthesis in Dominican Spanish (Núñez Cedeño 1988)  Ø  s / _ ]  (optional, structure-preserving)  /abogado/ ‘lawyer’  asbogado, abosgado, abogasdo, abogados

23. French schwa deletion   Ø / V (#) C _, L  R, optional across #   Ø / V (#) C _, L  R, optional across # envie de te le demander ‘feel like asking you’ (1980:225) envie de te le demander ‘feel like asking you’ (1980:225)  ãvidt  ld  mãde  ãvidt  l  d  mãde  ãvidt  l  dmãde  ãvid  t  l  dmãde  ãvid  tl  dmãde  ãvid  tl  d  mãde  ãvid  t  ld  mãde  ãvid  t  l  d  mãde Same for English u  , as in did you not try to smile (18) Same for English u  , as in did you not try to smile (18) Howard 1972:140: this effect can’t be derived in the simultaneous application theory of SPE (we can say the same for OT) Howard 1972:140: this effect can’t be derived in the simultaneous application theory of SPE (we can say the same for OT) Dell, François. 1980. Generative phonology and French phonology. Cambridge University Press.

24. Conclusions Iterativity and optionality play important roles in all known phonological systems. Iterativity and optionality play important roles in all known phonological systems. Theories of harmonic parallelism such as Optimality Theory can simulate certain iterative and optional effects, but: Theories of harmonic parallelism such as Optimality Theory can simulate certain iterative and optional effects, but:  These simulations do not reflect our intuitions about what is involved in these processes;  They cannot account for certain important types of iterativity and optionality. All theories have strong and weak points, but this is a major problem for OT because: All theories have strong and weak points, but this is a major problem for OT because:  Iterativity and optionality are general classes of phenomena that play a central role in human language; they are not isolated data sets in individual languages to be explained away as “noise”;  The conceptual appeal of OT lies in its avoidance of abstract intermediate stages of derivation, but these are shown to be necessary and central to the grammar. A rule-based derivational model of phonology and morphology of the sort espoused in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) generates the desired effects efficiently and insightfully. A rule-based derivational model of phonology and morphology of the sort espoused in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) generates the desired effects efficiently and insightfully. When coupled with other severe problems with OT (e.g. opacity), the implication is clear: OT must be abandoned in favor of DP. When coupled with other severe problems with OT (e.g. opacity), the implication is clear: OT must be abandoned in favor of DP.

25. Basic iterativity What if we incorporate a NoClash constraint? What if we incorporate a NoClash constraint?  (unless we somehow incorporate iterativity) it wrongly predicts the general headedness parameter (in this case Leftmost) to dictate direction of resolution: a-pa-ra NoClashMaxAccentLeftmost * * * * á-pa-ra *!* * * * * * * a-pa-rá **! * * * * * * á-pa-ra !  