2. Constraint Conjunction, Ties, Opacity Plan of this unit. Discussion of Optionality Introduction of Ties Technicalities Cumulative Effects Introduction of Constraint Conjunctions The Limits of the Approach

3. Constraint Conjunction, Ties, Opacity We saw yesterday that the relation between input and output is not always one-to-one but that some inputs lead to ineffability. Today we will see more cases of more complex relations between inputs, outputs and candidates..

4. Optionality The reverse of ineffability is a case where several outputs emerge as optimal, not just one. This is a case of optionality or free variation. A phenomenon like optionality or free variation implies that the grammar must be flexible enough to allow competing expressions to emerge..

5. Multiple outputs:optionality Different ways to express ‘Who did you see?’ in French: Tu as vu qui? Qui as-tu vu? Qui est-ce que tu as vu? C’est qui que tu as vu?

6. Multiple outputs:optionality Expletive Insertion vs. Movement there was a moose shot a moose was shot Dative Shift I gave a book to Mary I gave Mary a book

7. Multiple outputs:optionality Complementizer Deletion I think (that) she is intelligent Extraposition / HNPS / Particle Shift a man from India arrived a man arrived from India she looked up the interesting answer she looked the interesting answer up

8. Multiple outputs:optionality Scrambling dass niemand das Buch gelesen hatte that nobody the book read had dass das Buch niemand gelesen hatte Topicalization das Buch hatte niemand gelesen gelesen hatte das Buch niemand niemand hatte das Buch gelesen

9. Multiple outputs:optionality Free variation in the phonology of German a. Segmental alternation [taç] and [ta:k] for Tag ‘day’ [g ´ reo:n] and [ge:reo:n] for Gereon ‘a name’ b. Alternation in stress position Télefon vs. Telefón

10. Multiple outputs:optionality Free variation in the phonology of French a. Choice of an alternant ancien ‘old’: [ãsj ´ n] and [ãsj ´~ n] in the masculine liaison case (un ancien ami) b. Glide formation ouest [w ´ st] ~ [u. ´ st] ‘west’, nuage [nu.a Ω ] ~ [n ¥ a Ω ] ‘cloud’, piano [pja.no] ~ [pi.a.no]

11. Solutions 1. Optionality is only apparent 2. Identity of profiles 3. Co-Phonologies (Co-syntaxes) 4. Tied Constraints

12. 1. Apparent Optionality First, optionality may be only apparent. There IS a meaning difference between der Pfarrer kommt ‘the priest comes’ and es kommt der Pfarrer

13. 1. Apparent Optionality The same would seem to hold for a moose was shot there was a moose shot Scrambling Different Topicalizations One can encode such differences in terms of semantic/pragmatic features.

14. 1. Apparent Optionality If these are in the input, than structures do not really compete with each other in instances of apparent optionality. Likewise, dative shift may involve a difference in lexical composition.

15. 2. Identical violation profiles Second, EVAL will not always be able to differentiate between the options... Suppose e.g. that complementizers do not induce a violation of Full Interpretation...

16. 2. Identical violation profiles Then I think he will come I think that he will come can be derived from the same input, and they have identical constraint violation profiles (Grimshaw) --> both can be grammatical (Dative Shift)

17. Solution 3 : cophonologies Within phonology, quite a different solution has been proposed: Co-phonologies are parallel phonologies for different parts of the phonology. (Co-phonologies as a way to account for free variation is usually dismissed because too permissive. Most cases which have been explained with co-phonologies can be explained otherwise.)

18. Cophonologies Typical cases imply the co-existence of two systems of stress patterns in a language (Turkish is a standard example, and German, too). We saw that in multi-stratal approaches, each stratum defines its own phonology. Remember class, classy, classic and levels.

19. Cophonologies The most relevant case for OT is stratification of the lexicon. Different parts of the vocabulary can define different strata: some segments, stress patterns, phonotactic generalizations and the like can be specific to some strata and absent in others. In German, final full vowels are typical for nonnative words: Auto, Menü, Biologie…

20. Cophonologies A widely accepted view is that the lexicon is organized concentrically (see Ito & Mester for Japanese, Féry for German). In the center there are the native words, obeying a strict phonology. A great deal of markedness constraints are active there. Going away from the center, words are less and less assimilated non- native words. The less assimilated words are, the less markedness constraints they fulfill and the more faithful they are to their source language.

21. Cophonologies 1. Native vocabulary 2. Assimilated foreign 3. Unassimilated foreign 1 2 3

22. Cophonologies Each stratum formed by some part of the vocabulary (Germanic, Latinate, Sino-Chinese, unassimilated…) is a co-phonology. It must been observed that ideally the markedness constraints are organized in just one hierarchy. Words fulfill the constraints up to a certain point, a different one for each stratum. Thus cophonologies are just partial.

23. 3. Cophonologies Free variation as cophonologies implies that one word can be in one stratum for one speaker and in another stratum for another speaker (genre in English, city in German…) Example in Japanese Citybank (a Japanese bank) is pronounced [∫it∫i], [∫iti] or [siti] bank

24. 3. Cosyntax Syntax shows related phenomena, though they are typically ignored. Consider e.g. the Germanic co-syntax of English Restricted V/2: In the garden stands a fountain „I am sick“ said the ugly stranger Rules of English proper must not follow Engliman *Does in the garden stand a fountain?

25. 4. Ties Ties are two (or more) constraints of the same rank. In case it is these constraints which decide on the optimality of candidates, the result of a tie is two or more different optimal outputs. This solution differs from the identity of profiles solution since the optional candidates have different profiles.

26. 4. Ties Ties can be interpreted differently. In the first interpretation, two hierarchies define simultaneous grammars from a certain point up (this is a case of cophonology and cosyntax). The result is two or more different optimal outputs.

27. First interpretation of ties C 2a >> C 2b >> C 3 … / …C 1 >> \ C 2b >> C 2a >> C 3 … C 1 >> C 2a >> C 2b >> C 3 … or C 1 >> C 2b >> C 2a >> C 3 …

28. First interpretation of ties Given the hierarchy A.... B C1/C2 D... E If C1 and C2 are tied by hierarchy, then S is grammatical iff S is optimal with respect to A...B C1D...E or A...B C2D...E

29. Multiple outputs: optionality

30. A Tie between Constraints in Syntax Pesetsky-style treatment of complemetizers: A different solution for I think (that) he will come LE(CP):A CP must begin with a complementizer (Align (CP, COMP, left) TEL:Do no pronounce function words

31. Complementizers in embedded clauses (1)I think that he is a fool (2)I think he is a fool

32. Relative Clauses (1)a man who that I like (2)a man who I like (3)a man that I like (4)a man I like Candidate (4) is eliminated because it violates both Tel and LECP. The other candidates violate either Tel or LCPC and are thus all optimal. Mixed case of identity of profiles and ties.

33. Relative Clauses

34. Possible drawback Since the candidates differ in their profiles it can be the case that a lower ranking constraint decide to eliminate one of the candidate which was chosen as optimal by the tie.

35. Second interpretation of ties The tie is defined in the same way as before, but the remaining of the hierarchy is identical. The drawback identified above is eliminated.

36. Second interpretation of tie C 2a >> C 2b / \ C 1 >> >> C 3 … \ / C 2b >> C 2a C 1 >> C 2a >> C 2b >> C 3 … or C 1 >> C 2b >> C 2a >> C 3 …

37. Relative Clauses

38. Third interpretation of ties In this concept of a tie, the number of violations of the tied constraints taken together is relevant for evaluation C 1 >> C 2a + C 2b >> C 3 … Such a definition is needed when more than two candidates emerge as optimal.

39. Ties between Constraints Given the hierarchy A.... B C1/C2 D... E If C1 and C2 are tied cumulatively, then S is grammatical iff S is optimal with respect to A...B F D...E where F is the sum of violations of C1 and C2

40. Pesetsky’s Concept of a Tie Wh-expletive insertion in German seems to be another case in point: any combination of Stay and FI violations yields a grammatical result

41. A Tie between Constraints 1. Wen denkst du t dass sie meint t dass Fritz liebt who think you that she believes that Fritz loves 2. was denkst du wen sie meint t dass Fritz liebt 3. was denkst du was sie meint wen Fritz liebt 4. was denkst du t dass sie meint wen Fritz liebt

42. A Tie between Constraints FIStay 1. Wen … t … t …** 2. was … wen … t …** 3. was … was … wen … ** 4. was … t … wen …**

43. A Tie between Constraints In interpretation 1 and 2, only the first and third candidates can emerge as optimal.

44. The Need for a further concept Ich denke / I think 1. dass der Fritz nicht geschlafen hat that the Fritz not slept has 2. der Fritz hat nicht geschlafen 1.FI 2.Stay (Comp) and Stay (prefield) A Pesetsky-style tie would favor 1.! GENERATE TWO HIERARCHIES

45. Another case in point Scrambling as an instance of multiple hierarchies (Uszkoreit) 1. nom > acc/datNOM 2. animate > inanimateANIM 3. definite > indefiniteDEF A sentence is grammatical if it satisfies at least one constraint

46. Ties between Constraints Dass der Mann ein Buch liest that the man a book reads NOM, DEF, ANIM *dass ein Buch der Mann liest *NOM, *DEF, *ANIM dass ein Mann das Buch liest that a man the book reads NOM, ANIM,*DEF dass das Buch ein Mann liest *NOM, *ANIM, DEF

47. Ties between Constraints Dass ein Buch der Frau hilft that a book the woman helps NOM, *DEF, *ANIM dass der Frau ein Buch hilft *NOM, DEF, ANIM dass das Buch einer Frau hilft NOM, DEF,*ANIM dass einer Frau das Buch hilft *NOM, *DEF, ANIM

48. Ties between Constraints A Pesetsky style concept of a tie would incorrectly predict that structures with n violations are blocked by structures with n- k violations. What we need for such examples is a concept of ties in which complete hierarchies are tied...

49. Lexicographic Conflict Resolution Recall that conflict resolution in OT is lexicographic: there is a hierarchy H of constraints, and C is better than D relative to H iff D violates the highest constraint on which C and D differ more often than C

50. Lexicographic Conflict Resolution A number of proposals have been made which imply that conflict resolution is not always lexicographic

51. Constraint conjunction Two cases of constraint conjunction: self- conjunction of one constraint and conjunction of different constraints. Universal ranking schema: C 1 & C 1 >> C 1 (self-conjunction) C 1 & C 2 >> C 1, C 2 (conjunction of different constraints)

52. Constraint conjunction 1. Self-conjunction of constraints: it is worse to violate the same constraints n times than to violate it n-1 times. 2. Conjunction of different constraints: we will see that some typical derivational effects have been accounted for with the help of constraint conjunction. When do we need local constraint conjunction?

53. Constraint conjunction Chain shift A -> B, B – > C but not: A – > C In Western Basque (Etxarri dialect), mid vowels raise to high, and high to raised (Kirchner 1996) IndefDef e – > i seme bat semi-e ‘ son ’ o – > uasto bat astu-e ‘ donkey ’ i – > i j erri bet erri j -e ‘ village ’ u – > u w buru bet buru w -e ‘ head ’

54. Constraint conjunction Raised {i j, u w }: [-low, +high, +raised] High {i, u}: [-low, +high, – raised] Mid {e,o}: [-low, – high, – raised] Low {a}: [+low, – high, – raised] In a serial approach, this is not a problem: raising from high to raised is ordered before raising from mid to high But in standard OT this is difficult to express.

55. Constraint conjunction HIATUS-RAISING: In V 1 V 2, maximize height of V 1. This constraint is gradient: a is 3 violations, mid vowels 2, high 1 and raised none. Faithfulness: IDENT-IO(high): If an input segment id [  high], then its output correspondent is [  high] IDENT-IO(raised): If an input segment id [  raised], then its output correspondent is [  raised]

56. Wrong results HIAT-RAIS IDENT(high) IDENT (rais) a.ie – > e*!* a.iie – > i ** a.iii e – > i j ** b.ii – > i*! b.iii – > i j *

57. Right results with constraint conjunction [ID(high) & HIAT-RAIS ID(high) ID(rais) ID(raised)] e – > e *! e – > i * e – > i j *! * * i – > i *! i – > i j *

58. Constraint conjunction Another nice example: Rendaku in Japanese : /ore-kami/ – > [ore-gami]: voicing of the first obstruent in the second part of a compound The application of Rendaku is limited by Lyman ’ s Law: ‘ Only one voiced obstruent per morpheme ’ /kami-kaze/ – > [kami-kaze] *kami-gaze.

59. Constraint conjunction /ore-kami/ *voicObstr2 Rendaku*voicObstr ore-gami * ore-kami*! /kami-kaze/ kami-kaze ** kami-gaze*! **

60. Constraint conjunction 2. Conjunction of different constraints: only markedness, only faithfuness, both kinds (Lubowicz, Ito & Mester)? To imitate the effect of the strict alternant condition (only segments subject to allophony can be subject to a rule (or the effect of a markedness constraint), it seems that faithfulness and markedness must be conjoined.

61. Chomsky on Barriers in „Barriers“ In his 1986 book „barriers“, Chomsky proposed that we measure the distance between a phrase and its trace in terms of the numnber of barriers that have been crossed.

62. Chomsky on Barriers in „Barriers“ O barriers what do you fix 1 barrier what do you wonder how to fix 2 barriers ??what do you wonder how one should fix

63. Chomsky on Barriers in „Barriers“ If it is true that languages/ construction types may differ as to how many barriers may be crossed, then we need to be able to rank e.g. the PARSE constraint between k barriers crossed > PARSE > k-1 barriers crossed CERTAINLY: k barriers crossed should not be an atomic constraint

64. Self conjunction of constraints Recall for self-conjunction of constraints: We say that CON k is violated if CON is violated at least k times... It seems necessary to assume that CON k >> PRIN >> CON k-1

65. Locality of self conjunction It seems more adequate to say that CON k is violated if CON is violated at least k times by the same element/in the same domain! 2 violations by SAME element *?What do you wonder who bought 2 violations by DIFFERENT elements what he wonders how to fix has an influence on what I wonder when to fix

66. Conjunction of different constraints What do you wonder how to fix t *how do you wonder what to fix t Adjuncts have to fulfill stricter locality requirements than arguments... REF:a chain is not headed by an adjunct

67. Conjunction of different constraints how do you think that she did it *how do you wonder when to fix the car what do you wonder when to fix BAR1 & REF > ParseScope > BAR1

68. An obvious problem By allowing constraint conjunction, the weighting (compensatory) type of conflict resolution can be represented in OT -->> OT gets less restrictive

69. An obvious problem A is more important than B, and A is more important than C, but B and C together outrank A B & C > A > B > C

70. Compensatory Effects in NL? Q-Scope in German Pafel proposes the following principles PREF: a quantifier in the prefield takes wide scope NOM: A nominative quantifier takes wide scope DIST: Inherently distributive quantifiers take wide scope

71. Compensatory Effects in NL? Jeder Pianist hat eine Fuge gespielt every pianist has a fugue played  by pref, nom & dist Jede Fuge hat ein Pianist gespielt  nom alone does not win over pref Ein Pianist hat jede Fuge gespielt  dist alone does not win over pref

72. Compensatory Effects in NL? Eine Fuge hat jeder Pianist gespielt  and  dist and nom win over pref A factual problem jeden Studenten hatte ein Pianist aus Polen empfangen each-acc student had a pianist from Polen received Grammaticality vs. Parsing Ease?