Faithfulness, Registers and Lexical Representation Marta Castella°* - Marko Simonović* (°Università di Verona, *Utrecht University – UiL-OTS) Verona IGG38 – February 24 th

Structure of this talk Starting point: Van Oostendorp (1998)’s idea Data and Analyses Roman dialect Dutch Serbo-Croatian Consequences Our contribution to the model Residual Questions

Starting Point Van Oostendorp (1998) works out the idea that styles and registers of one language (informal, formal, etc. – and we include speed as well) represent related systems and not self- contained grammars. This is to 1. simplify the set of assumptions that we need on the acquisition side (avoid an “empowered” logical problem of language acquisition). 2. make inconsistent that two registers would differ like two random grammars do (on the empirical/typological side). We produce extra evidence in support of this claim, using data of slow, medium and fast speech from the dialect of Rome and from Serbo-Croatian.

Theoretical framework OT Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004):  Surface forms are the result of the evaluation by conflicting constraints that interact with one another, dependently on their ranking (a language- specific hierarchy);  a grammar consists of the ordering of this universal set of constraints, and the way of accounting for any variation is the manipulation of their ranking. Van Oostendorp (1998) suggests a principle to account for cases of register variation: → The more formal the register, the higher ranked the faithfulness constraints

Example 1 Allegroform: speed and the dialect of Rome In the dialect of Rome, speed has a clear impact on phonology. From slow to fast speech many phenomena arise. One is, for instance, the deletion/lenition of [l] followed by vowel assimilation. We suggest that: formal levels behave symmetrically to slow speech, semi-formal levels behave symmetrically to medium speech informal levels behave symmetrically to fast speech There is a continuum between perception-oriented speech (i.e. listener-friendly) and production-oriented speech (i.e. speaker- friendly).

Deletion of [l] followed by vowel assimilation Prepositions: /de/ “of, from” /da/ “from, to” /a/ “to” Articles: /lo/* “the masc.sing ”, /la/ “the femm.sing ”, /i/ “the masc.plur ”, /e/ “the femm.plur ” Data Sample [slow][de lo][de la][a la][a lo] [medium][de.o][de.a][a.a][a.o] [fast][doo][daa][aa][ao] [slow][da lo][da la][da le][da i] [medium][da.o][da.a][da.e][da.i] [fast][doo][daa][dee][dii] */lo/ is the article that precedes words starting with /z/, /pn/, / ɲ /, /ps/, / ʃ /, /ks/, /s/+consonant (and vowels). Elsewhere /er/.

Constraints and Rankings Constraint set Markedness *(weak)struc: weak consonants are not present in the output Agree: adjacent vowels have the same features Faithfulness IDENT-V- IO: It is prohibited to change the feature values in vowels MAX-C-IO: No deletion in consonants Ranking: [Slow]IDENT-V-IO, MAX-C-IO>>*(weak)struc, Agree

Outcomes

Constraints and Rankings Constraint set *(weak)struc: weak consonants are not present in the output Agree: adjacent vowels have the same features IDENT-V- IO: It is prohibited to change the feature values in vowels MAX-C-IO: No deletion in consonants Ranking: [Med.]*(weak)struc, IDENT-V-IO>>MAX-C-IO, Agree

Outcomes

Constraints and Rankings Constraint set *(weak)struc: weak consonants are not present in the output Agree: adjacent vowels have the same features IDENT-V- IO: It is prohibited to change the feature values in vowels MAX-C-IO: No deletion in consonants Ranking: [Fast]*(weak)struc, Agree>>IDENT-V-IO, MAX-C-IO

Outcomes

Reranking [Slow]IDENT-V-IO, MAX-C-IO>>*(weak)struc, Agree [Med.]*(weak)struc, IDENT-V-IO>>MAX-C-IO, Agree [Fast]*(weak)struc, Agree>>IDENT-V-IO, MAX-C-IO

Reranking

Example 2 (from van Oostendorp 1998) Vowel reduction in three registers of Dutch fonologie (phonology) is pronounced: 1. [ ˌ fo.no.lo. ˈ xi] formally 2. [ ˌ fo.no.l ə. ˈ xi] semi-formally 3. [ ˌ fo.n ə.l ə. ˈ xi] informally Constraint set Parse (F) Reduce-1:Weak and semi-weak positions should be schwa. Reduce-2: Weak positions should be schwa. All other unstressed postions Immediately following an unstressed position

Example 2: Rankings and outcomes formal. [fonolo ˈ xi] yields [fonolo ˈ xi] Parse-[+high] >> Parse-[+round] >> Parse-[+low] >> Reduce-2 >> Reduce-1 >> Parse-[+front] semi-formal. [fonolo ˈ xi] yields [fonol ə ˈ xi] Parse-[+high] >> Reduce-2 >> Parse-[+round] >> Reduce-1 >> Parse-[+low] >> Parse-[+front] informal. [fonolo ˈ xi] ] yields [fon ə l ə ˈ xi] Parse-[+high] >> Reduce-2 >> Reduce-1 >> Parse-[+round] >> Parse-[+low] >> Parse-[+front]

New data – Example 3 Opacity, Coda-l vocalisation and a-Epenthesis in Serbo-Croatian In Serbo-Croatian, there is a historicized process which turns coda-l into [o]. Coda-l vocalisation /del/ → [de.o]“part nominative ” /del + a/ → [de.la]“part genitive ” (It does not apply to any non-native items: kanal, rival, interval.) There is another process which disrupts all coda clusters by inserting an epenthetic [a]. a-Epenthesis /visk/ → [visak]“pendulum nominative ” /visk + a/ → [viska]“pendulum genitive ”

Example 3 - Opacity and Registers These two processes interact opaquely: Coda-l vocalisation bleeds the environment of a-Epenthesis. /petl/ → /petal/ → [petao]“cock nominative ” (a-epenthesis) (l-vocalisation) /petl + a/ → [petla]“cock genitive ” Important! Fast/very informal has the transparent mapping /petl/ → [peto].

Our contribution Potential problem: Registers are rankings of constraints i.e. OT grammars. However, informal/faster registers could, in principle, be unlearnable by themselves because, as we have seen, they rely on representations which are made available by formal/slower registers. Solution: Other representations another language. So registers are full rankings, but not full, self-sufficient languages. Generalization: registers are part of a broader phenomenon of related forms (e.g. speed, dialects, cognates, interspeaker variatios, etc.) Acquisition Accomodation Principle: when speakers are building their lexicon/grammar, they rely on all the available forms. Bottomline: representations matter (not contra RotB, rather pro RotS)

In other words, a direct consequence of the data: what if a register is missing? What is the representation in a Dutch speaker who has only ever been exposed to [ ˌ fon ə l ə ˈ xi]? But then, this speaker would have to be exposed to [ ˌ fon ə ˈ lox] “phonologist informal ”? Can there be a Roman fast-register-only speaker? Would this speaker lack any representation of [de la]? How does the Serbo-Croatian “informal speaker” compute the opaque forms of the type [petao]? Bottomline: Representations depend on the available forms.

Beyond the primacy of the slow/formal? What we have seen is really part of the Dutch/Italian/Serbo-Croatian speakers’ competences. So it is worthwhile to move beyond the “anthropological” bias (encoded in van Oostendorp’s principle): Slow/formal gets it right by definition: the lexicon relies on slow/formal speech. So, it is not surprising that FAITH is high in slow/formal ranking. But: do we need to encode that much?

Our alternative or On how van Oostendorop is (more) right (than he thinks) Every surface form (produced or perceived) participates in the construction of the underlying representation. This clearly plays a role in the comprehension of e.g. other dialects/sociolects (see Benders 2011). Due to physical properties of slow/formal speech, such forms will contain more contrast/information than other forms; these will always be closer to underlying forms.

Residual questions As pointed out to us by Birgit Alber (voce), this could be a domain of Output-Output relations. So, do different style/register forms constitute paradigms of some sort? Is there cross-style uniformity? Is there blocking from above? e.g. in lexicalizations, borrowings, etc.

Thank you!