1. Rules, Constraints, and Overlapping Violations: the case of Acoma accent loss Approaches to Phonological Opacity GLOW Workshop 2006 Joan Chen-Main joan@cogsci.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins University

2. 2 Rule-based Phonology Generalizations about a language’s sound structure stated as rewrite rules Opacity effects: generalizations are not surface true The application of the rules is ordered That’s all about the interaction of different rules, but...

3. 3 Overlapping Violations What about when a single rule can apply multiple times to the same string? e.g. X → Y/__ X i.e. XX → YX independent: X X A X X → Y X A Y X overlapping: X X X A B → ?

4. 4 Possible Ways to Apply a Rule Anderson’s (1974) How to Apply a Rule to a Form left-to-right –Mandarin tone sandhi3-3 → 2-3 3-3-3-3 → 2-2-2-3 right-to-left –Slovak ‘rhythmic law’ CV: CV: → CV: CV CV: CV: CV: → CV: CV CV simultaneous

5. 5 Optimality Theory: the appeal Duplication in Rule-based theory –Rules are bound by the segmental inventory Conspiracies of Rules –Different repairs all resulting in the same surface form Do X except/only when...

6. 6 Optimality Theory: difficulty 1 Opacity Opaque generalizations are non-surface true –take place at an intermediate representation –predicted by any theory allowing intermediate representations OT does not allow intermediate representations

7. 7 Optimality Theory: difficulty 2 Non-local interaction Wilson’s (in prep) observation: In classic OT, unattested, non-local interaction is possible. e.g. between epenthesis and nasal spreading –*CC# –Spread-R([+nasal], PrWd): For every [+nasal] autosegment n, assign 1 violation for every segment in the same prosodic word that is to the right of n’s domain. (Walker,1998/2002, for Malay)

8. 8 Optimality Theory: difficulty 2 Non-local interaction –Vowel epenthesis applies to a final consonant cluster except when there is a preceding [+nasal] feature anywhere in the word that is blocked from spreading to the right edge. /nawakast/ Spread-R([+nasal], PrWd) *CC# a. na  w  a  kas  t *****! b. na  w  a  kast *****

9. 9 An OT Extension Targeted Constraint OT (Wilson, in prep) –does allow intermediate representations: solves opacity problem –avoids predicting “farsighted” patterns

10. 10 Outline Targeted Constraint Optimality Theory (Wilson’s post 2001 version) –targeted constraints –candidate evaluation TCOT vs. rule-based phonology Acoma accent loss –difficulties with a rule-based account –availability of a TCOT account

11. 11 Targeted Constraint OT Two novel aspects: 1)How change is integrated Changes are introduced by G EN s associated with a particular targeted markedness constraints. 2)How changes are evaluated The system rewards certain changes but penalizes others.

12. 12 Targeted Constraints A targeted constraint C is a pairing of a locus of violation (λ) with a change (δ) Wilson’s claim: δ is the minimal perceptual change Machinery allows any rule to have a targeted constraint analogue

13. 13 Targeted Constraint Analogues V [+short] → [-accent] / [+obst] __ [+obst] C 0 [+ syll, + accent] T:*C LASH : λ: two consecutive [+accent] syllables, where the first vowel is short and is flanked on both sides by an obstruent. δ: [+accent] → [-accent] in the first syllable C 0 = zero or more consonants

14. 14 G EN C associated with a Targeted Constraint C G EN C maps a candidate to a candidate set: all candidates that can be derived by applying change δ to zero or more instances of the locus λ. e.g. If σ́σ́σ́ has 2 violations of T:*C LASH, then G EN T:*C LASH produces 4 candidates –the completely faithful candidate σ́σ́σ́ –the candidate where δ is applied to both λ’s σσσ́ –two candidates where δ is only applied to one λ σσ́σ́, σ́σσ́

15. 15 Targeted Constraint Evaluation When comparing the input representation x with a candidate output y... –For every λ in y, assign 1 mark to y. –For every λ in x that is repaired in y in the way specified by δ, remove 1 mark from y. –For every λ in x that is repaired in y in a way not specified by δ, add 1 mark to y.

16. 16 Example Evaluation candidate yviolations that remain violations fixed as specified by δ violations fixed, but not as specified by δ Total σ́σ́σ́+2 0 + 0 = +2 σσσ́ 0(-1) + (-1) 0 + 0= -2 σσ́σ́+1(-1) + 0 0 + 0= 0 σ́σσ́ 0 0 + (-1)+1 + 0= 0 Input x: σ́σ́σ́

17. 17 Rewarding Rule Application output yNumber of times rewrite rule could apply Number of times rewrite rule did apply (-2) for each rule application Total σ́σ́σ́202 + 0= +2 σσσ́222 + 2(-2)= -2 σσ́σ́212 + 1(-2)= 0 σ́σσ́212 + 1(-2)= 0 Input x: σ́σ́σ́

18. 18 TCOT and Rule-based Phonology Specify preferred repairs Generate intermediate representations Good at accounting for data that is difficult for Classic OT How do TCOT and rule-based phonology differ?

19. 19 TCOT vs. Rule-based Phonology Notion of minimal perceptual change (δ) –could be incorporated into rule-based theory Candidate evaluation in TCOT, as in Classic OT –competing output candidates evaluated against a set of ranked, violable constraints Does retaining an OT architecture ever result in different predictions?

20. 20 Acoma: the people Acoma pueblo: Sky City –approx. 60mi west of Albuquerque, NM –oldest continuously inhabited city in the U.S. –distinctive pottery Acoma language –closely related to other pueblo languages –data from Miller’s (1965) book Dorothy Torivio

21. 21 Acoma: accent ablaut (Miller 1965) In the presence of an ablauting suffix, a high accent is assigned to every syllable –sometimes with the lengthening of final vowel –sometimes excepting certain final syllables without accent ablaut: r û u n i š i ‘Monday’ with accent ablaut: r u u n i š i i z e‘on Monday’

22. 22 Acoma: accent loss (Miller 1965) a short syllable between obstruents followed by an accented syllable loses its accent Anderson’s rule (1974) V → [-accent] / [+obst] ___ [+obst] C 0 [+ syll, + accent] –context: the conditions for application of the rule –focus: the segments that satisfy the conditions

23. 23 One Focus for Accent Loss s i u k a c̉ a n i → s i u k a c̉ a n i‘when I saw him’ simultaneous left-to-rightright-to-left 1 focusok

24. 24 Two Foci for Accent Loss k' a p i š ə́ n í → k' a p i š ə́ n i‘at night’ simultaneous rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to all foci σ σ σ́ σ́ attested pattern

25. 25 Two Foci for Accent Loss k' a p i š ə́ n í → k' a p i š ə́ n i‘at night’ L  R rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to the leftmost focus σ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to next-leftmost focus σ σ σ́ σ́ attested pattern

26. 26 Two Foci for Accent Loss k' a p i š ə́ n í → k' a p i š ə́ n i‘at night’ R  L rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to the rightmost focus σ́ σ σ́ σ́ context for next-rightmost focus is destroyed σ́ σ σ́ σ́ non-attested surface pattern

27. 27 Two Foci for Accent Loss simultaneous left-to-rightright-to-left 1 focusok 2 fociok X

28. 28 Three Foci for Accent Loss s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i → s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’ simultaneous rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ 3 foci for accent loss σ σ σ σ́ σ́ non-attested surface pattern

29. 29 Three Foci for Accent Loss s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i → s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’ L  R rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to the leftmost focus σ σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to the next-leftmost focus σ σ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to last focus σ σ σ σ́ σ́ non-attested surface form

30. 30 Three Foci for Accent Loss s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i → s u c̉ i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’ R  L rule application: σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ rule applies to the rightmost focus σ́ σ́ σ σ́ σ́ context for next-rightmost focus is destroyed σ́ σ́ σ σ́ σ́ rule applies to next-rightmost focus σ σ́ σ σ́ σ́ attested pattern

31. 31 Inconsistent Rule Application simultaneous left-to-rightright-to-left 1 focusok 2 fociok X 3 fociXXok

32. 32 Modified Rule Application Anderson’s solution –If any contexts for a rule contains a focus for the same rule, eliminate the minimal number of (focus+context)s from consideration to yield independent (focus+context)s σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́→σ́ σ́ σ́ σ́ –Indeterminacies resolved by choosing to maximize feeding and minimizing bleeding –Allow some rules to reapply

33. 33 Constraints in TCOT Analysis T:*C LASH : λ: two consecutive [+accent] syllables, where the first vowel is short and is flanked on both sides by an obstruent. δ: [+accent] → [-accent] in the first syllable F AITH -A CCENT : penalize changes in a syllable’s accent *L APSE -A CCENT : penalize two consecutive unaccented syllables *E XT L APSE -A CCENT : penalize three consecutive unaccented syllables (Gordon 2002)

34. 34 Constraint Ranking In the 2 foci case: σ́σ́σ́σ́ T:*C LASH ’s most preferred candidate removes 2 accents: σσσ́ Lower ranking of *L APSE -A CCENT cannot eliminate T:*C LASH ’s preferred candidate *E XT L APSE- A CCENT >> T:*C LASH >> *L APSE- A CCENT, F AITH- A CCENT

35. 35 Constraint Ranking In the 3 foci case: σ́σ́σ́σ́σ́ T:*C LASH ’s most preferred candidate removes 3 accents: σσσσ́σ́ But the higher ranked *E XT L APSE -A CCENT prevents this candidate from being optimal T:*C LASH ’s next-most preferred candidates remove 2 accents: σ́σσσ́σ́, σσ́σσ́σ́, σσσ́σ́σ́ The lower ranked *L APSE -A CCENT chooses σσ́σσ́σ́ *E XT L APSE- A CCENT >> T:*C LASH >> *L APSE- A CCENT, F AITH- A CCENT

36. 36 Constraint Re-Ranking Top-ranked T:*C LASH simulates –simultaneous rule application –left-to-right rule application T:*C LASH >> *E XT L APSE- A CCENT, *L APSE- A CCENT, F AITH- A CCENT

37. 37 Constraint Re-Ranking T:*C LASH ranked below *L APSE -A CCENT simulates –right-to-left rule application *E XT L APSE- A CCENT, *L APSE- A CCENT >> T:*C LASH >> F AITH- A CCENT

38. 38 Typology of Rule Application Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule *L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units *E XT -L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units simultaneous rule application TC >> *L APSE, *E XT -L APSE

39. 39 Typology of Rule Application Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule *L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units *E XT -L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units Anderson-style simultaneous rule application *E XT -L APSE >> TC >> *L APSE

40. 40 Typology of Rule Application Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule *L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units *E XT -L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units left-to-right rule application –when δ targets the left e.g. X → Y/__ X TC >> *L APSE, *E XT -L APSE –when δ targets the righte.g. X → Y/ X __ *L APSE, *E XT -L APSE >> TC

41. 41 Typology of Rule Application Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule *L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units *E XT -L APSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units right-to-left rule application –when δ targets the left e.g. X → Y/__ X *L APSE, *E XT -L APSE >> TC –when δ targets the righte.g. X → Y/ X __ TC >> *L APSE, *E XT -L APSE

42. 42 Concluding Remarks TCOT vs. Classic OT TCOT provides analyses for opacity effects TCOT avoids predicting unattested non- local interaction

43. 43 Concluding Remarks TCOT vs. Rule-based phonology In rule-based phonology, Acoma accent loss requires Anderson’s modification In TCOT, re-ranking of constraints predicts –Acoma pattern –apparent L  R, R  L, and simultaneous rule application

44. 44 Concluding Remarks How should we view TCOT? As a mixed model of rule-constraint interaction: a formalization of pre-OT suggestions (Paradis 1988, Myers 1991)

45. 45 Acknowledgements Colin Wilson Luigi Burzio, Sara Finley, Bob Frank, Gaja Jarosz, Paul Smolensky

46. 46 Bibliography Anderson, S. 1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Gordon, M. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 491-552. Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kisseberth, C. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1:291-306. McCarthy, J. 2003. On targeted constraints and cluster simplification. Phonology 19, 273-292. Miller, W. 1965. Acoma grammar and texts. (University of California Publications in Linguistics No. 40.) Berkeley: University of California Press. Myers, S. 1991. Persistent Rules. Linguistic Inquiry. 22:315-344.

47. 47 Paradis, C. 1988. On Constraints and Repair Strategies. The Linguistic Review 6: 71-97. Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, 1993. Revised version published by Blackwell, 2004. Steriade, D. 2001. The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: the P- map and its Consequences for Constraint Organization. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. Wilson, C. 2001. Consonant Cluster Neutralisation and Targeted Constraints. Phonology 18:147-197. Wilson, C. (in prep). Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: marks, targets, and derivations. Ms. University of California, Los Angeles.