Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Contingent Optionality Eric Baković and Bożena Pająk UC San Diego 82 nd LSA Meeting Chicago, January 4, 2008.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Contingent Optionality Eric Baković and Bożena Pająk UC San Diego 82 nd LSA Meeting Chicago, January 4, 2008."— Presentation transcript:

1 Contingent Optionality Eric Baković and Bożena Pająk UC San Diego 82 nd LSA Meeting Chicago, January 4, 2008

2 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego2 Overview of the talk Presentation of Polish data phonologically-conditioned allomorphy of the clitic /z/ what is obligatory, what is optional, and why A rule-based analysis fails to describe the data contingent optionality between two rules is inexpressible A stochastic OT analysis succeeds contingent optionality expressed, possibilities predicted Probabilities not correctly predicted question raised: should grammar predict probabilities?

3 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego3 Polish clitic /z/: voicing assimilation Agree[voi] >> Ident[voi] z+ign ɔ r ɔ v ɑ t ͡ɕ ‘to ignore’ z+g ɑ z ɛ t ɔ ̃ ‘with a newspaper’ z+z ɛ g ɑ rk ɑ ‘from a watch’ s+k ɔ t ɛ m ‘with a cat’ s+s ʊ n ɔ ̃t ͡ɕ ‘to slip down’

4 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego4 Polish clitic /z/: vowel epenthesis Ø → V / C 1 __ C 2 C where C 1 and C 2 are ‘sufficiently identical’ (i.e., identical except for voicing) Epenthesis before {z/s}CNo epenthesis z ɛ +zv ʲɛʒɛ ̃t ͡ɕ it ͡ɕ ‘to make animal-like’ z ɛ +zn ɑ k ʲɛ m ‘with a sign’ z ɛ +st ʃɛ lit ͡ɕ ‘to shoot down’ z ɛ +sk ɑ w ɔ ̃ ‘with a rock’ z+g ʒɛʃɨ t ͡ɕ ‘to sin’ z+b ʒ d ɛ ̃k ʲɛ m ‘with a plunk’ s+fr ʊ n ɔ ̃t ͡ɕ ‘to fly down’ s+p ʃ t ͡ʃɔ w ɔ ̃ ‘with a bee’ z+zamk ʊ ‘from a castle’ s+s ɛ r ɛ m ‘with cheese’

5 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego5 /z+znak ʲɛ m/ z+znak ʲɛ m z ɛ +znak ʲɛ m /z+skaw ɔ ̃/ s+skaw ɔ ̃ z ɛ +skaw ɔ ̃ Voicing assimilation is obligatory ■ Epenthesis applies to avoid sequences of identical consonants in a cluster (not ‘sufficiently identical’). * * Avoidance of identical consonants

6 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego6 Epenthesis – OT analysis (following analysis of English and Lithuanian in Baković 2005, Phonology) NoGem+C >> Dep(V) NoGem+CNo adjacent identical consonants (geminate) as part of a cluster

7 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego7 Combining epenthesis and assimilation Agree[voi] >> Dep(V) Dep(V) >> Ident[voi]

8 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego8 Polish clitic /z/: coronal place assimilation (CPA) Alveolo-palatal ʑ +d ͡ʑɛ t ͡ɕ mi orz+d ͡ʑɛ t ͡ɕ mi ‘with children’ ɕ + ɕ anas+ ɕ ana ‘from hay’ Postalveolar ʒ + ʒ ab ɨ orz+ ʒ ab ɨ ‘from a frog’ ʃ +t ͡ʃ kafk ɔ ̃ s+t ͡ʃ kafk ɔ ̃ ‘with hiccups’ Agree[cor] ~ Ident[cor] optionality constraint tie

9 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego9 Polish clitic /z/: optional epenthesis z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m or z ɛ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m s+ ɕ f ʲ ata z ɛ + ɕ f ʲ ata s+ ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i z ɛ + ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i /z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m/ /z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m/ /z+ ɕ f ʲ ata/ /z+ ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i/ Ø → V / C 1 __ C 2 C where C 1 and C 2 are ‘sufficiently identical’ (i.e., identical except for voicing and coronal place of articulation) ‘with a colt’ ‘with a wildcat’ ‘from the world’ ‘from Sweden’ cf. * ʑ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m * ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m * ɕ + ɕ f ʲ ata * ʃ + ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i optionality

10 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego10 Summary of the variation pattern /z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m/ → ʒ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m ~ z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m /z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m/ → z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m ~ z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m CPAno CPA *epenthesis *z ɛ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m * ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m epenthesis no CPA *CPA

11 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego11 Why a rule-based analysis fails Epenthesis is both optional and obligatory. Optional only when adjacent coronal consonants disagree in place e.g. /z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m/ → [z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m] ~ [z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m] Obligatory when adjacent coronal consonants agree in place e.g. /z+znak ʲɛ m/ → [z ɛ +znak ʲɛ m] * [z+znak ʲɛ m] At minimum, two epenthesis rules are needed.

12 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego12 Two epenthesis rules Ø → V / C 1 __ C 2 C C 1 = C 2 ignoring [voice] (obligatory) Ø → V / C 1 __ C 2 C C 1 = C 2 ignoring [voice], [ COR -place] (optional)

13 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego13 Two assimilation rules Voicing assimilation [ – son] → [αvoice] / __ C[αvoice] (obligatory) Coronal place assimilation (CPA) [ COR ] → [α COR -pl] / __ C[α COR -pl] (optional)

14 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego14 Contingent optionality fails 1. Ø → V / C 1 __ C 2 C C 1 = C 2 ignoring [voice], [ COR -place](optional) 2. Coronal place assimilation (CPA) [ COR ] → [α COR -pl] / __ C[α COR -pl](optional) Epenthesis bleeds assim. /z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m/ 1. z ɛ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m 2. —bled— [z ɛ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m] Both rules are skipped /z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m/ 1. —skip— 2. —skip— [z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m] Assimilation must be skipped! /z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m/ 1. —skip— 2. ʑ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m  [ ʑ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m] If epenthesis is skipped, assimilation must also be.

15 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego15 Contingent optionality explained The optionality of CPA makes epenthesis optional in just those cases where it is. ʑ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m /z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m/ z+ ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m * Epenthesis is obligatory whenever adjacent identical consonants would otherwise arise due to assimilation (optionally or not). z ɛ + ʑ r ɛ bak ʲɛ m ʃ + ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i /z+ ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i/ s+ ʃ f ɛ t ͡ s ʲ i zɛ+ʃfɛt͡sʲizɛ+ʃfɛt͡sʲi *

16 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego16 Optionality induces a ranking paradox (Pająk 2007, WECOL) /z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m/ → ʒ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m ~ z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m *z ɛ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m CPA no CPA *epenthesis /z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m/ → z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m ~ z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m * ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m epenthesis no CPA *CPA 16

17 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego17 Stochastic OT (Boersma 1998, Boersma & Hayes 2001)

18 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego18 Stochastic OT: Polish data ʒ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m ~ z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m ~ z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m Dep(V) >> Ident[cor] Agree[cor] ~ Ident[cor] NoGem+C >> Dep(V) Agree[cor] ~ Dep(V) Distribution (normal) of selection point / Agree[cor]

19 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego19 Stochastic OT: probabilities Ranking with the highest probability: (1) NoGem+C >> Dep(V) >> Agree[cor] >> Ident[cor] Rankings with lower probability: (2) NoGem+C >> Dep(V) >> Ident[cor] >> Agree[cor] (3) NoGem+C >> Agree[cor] >> Dep(V) >> Ident[cor]

20 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego20 Stochastic OT: probabilities (1) NoGem+C >> Dep(V) >> Agree[cor] >> Ident[cor] (2) NoGem+C >> Dep(V) >> Ident[cor] >> Agree[cor] (3) NoGem+C >> Agree[cor] >> Dep(V) >> Ident[cor] 1 Based on an experimental study by Osowicka-Kondratowicz (2004) 2 Based on a search through a written corpus of Polish Ranking with the highest probability

21 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego21 > z ɛ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m epenthesis most effectively separates clitic from stem z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m no CPA keeps clitic narrowly distinct from stem-initial C ʒ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m CPA makes clitic near- identical with stem-initial C > epenthesis most effectively separates clitic from stem *z ɛ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m CPA makes clitic identical with stem-initial C z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m epenthesis most effectively separates clitic from stem z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m no CPA keeps clitic narrowly distinct from stem-initial C Grammar rules out epenthesis; no CPA > CPA Morpheme perceptibility scale (based on an idea originally due to Matt Goldrick, p.c.) Grammar rules out CPA; epenthesis > no CPA 99% 1% 75% 25% * ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m CPA makes clitic identical with stem-initial C > >

22 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego22 It can’t be the grammar If morpheme perceptibility is a constraint (call it MP) in the grammar, it will prefer epenthesis — resulting in another ranking paradox: Dep(V) >> MP –z+d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m > ʒ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m| *z ɛ +d ͡ʒɛ m ɛ m MP >> Dep(V) –z ɛ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m > z+ ʒ bik ʲɛ m| * ʒ + ʒ bik ʲɛ m Our current hypothesis The grammar generates possibilities alone. Extragrammatical factors, such as morpheme perceptibility, determine probabilities.

23 Baković & Pająk :: UC San Diego23 Conclusions Epenthesis in ‘sufficiently identical’ C 1 __C 2 C = geminate avoidance + assimilation. (Baković 2005) The optionality of epenthesis is contingent on the optionality of coronal place assimilation. A rule-based analysis fails to capture both aspects of epenthesis-assimilation interaction. A Stochastic OT (-like) grammar works. The grammar generates possibilities alone. Other factors (e.g., morpheme perceptibility) determine probabilities. (Pająk 2007)

24 Thank you Amalia Arvaniti Cynthia Kilpatrick Lucien Carroll J. Grant Loomis Rebecca Colavin Hannah Rohde Alex del Giudice Sharon Rose Matt Goldrick WECOL 2007 audience Acknowledgments


Download ppt "Contingent Optionality Eric Baković and Bożena Pająk UC San Diego 82 nd LSA Meeting Chicago, January 4, 2008."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google