Principles Rules or Constraints Lecture 4 Phonology Principles Rules or Constraints

Input  Output Why should a grammar sometimes consider altering an input? Is it an act of maintaining a more general statement? Can such general statements or principles be maintained in more than one way? How does a grammar discriminate between alternative (competing) solutions?

Final -ed Allomorphs [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] laughed lived added [] [] [] liked nagged started a. the suffix is voiced [] after voiced sounds and is rendered voiceless [] after voiceless sounds. b. a schwa [] occurs between the suffix and a preceding // or //.

Multiple Analyses Analysis I: assuming underlying // which entails: Schwa insertion and Devoicing Analysis II: assuming underlying // which entails: Schwa insertion and Voicing Analysis III: assuming underlying // which entails: Schwa deletion and Devoicing

Rules and Derivations Analysis I underlying // Schwa insertion:   [] / C1 ___ C2 if C1 and C2 differ, at most, in voicing Devoicing: +voiced   [-voiced] / [-voiced] ___  -son  Derivations UR /-/ /-/ /-/ Schwa insertion --- ---  Devoicing  --- --- SR [] [] []

Rules and Derivations Analysis II underlying // Schwa insertion:   [] / C1 ___ C2 if C1 and C2 differ, at most, in voicing Voicing: -voiced   [+voiced] / [+voiced] ___  -son  only applies to the consonants of -ed suffixes (cf. mint, ark, etc.) Derivations UR /-/ /-/ /-/ Schwa insertion --- ---  Voicing ---   SR [] [] []

Rules and Derivations Analysis III underlying // Schwa deletion: []   / C1 ___ C2 unless C1 and C2 differ, at most, in voicing Devoicing: +voiced   [-voiced] / [-voiced] ___  -son  Derivations UR /-/ /-/ /-/ Schwa deletion   --- Devoicing  --- --- SR [] [] []

Principles  Rules Rules are natural consequences of principles. The Voice Agreement Principle: Obstruent sequences may not differ with respect to [voice] at the end of an English word. The Voice Agreement Principle motivates the voicing and devoicing rules.

Plausibility Devoicing: +voiced   [-voiced] / [-voiced] ___  -son  No sequence of [-voiced] [+voiced] segments may end an English word. (True in English) Devoicing is a consequence of a general principle. Voicing: -voiced   [+voiced] / [+voiced] ___  No sequence of [+voiced] [-voiced] segments may end an English word. (Not True in English) only applies to the consonants of -ed suffixes (cf. mint, ark, etc.) Therefore, analysis I is more plausible than analysis II.

Principles  Rules Rules are natural consequences of principles. The Not-Too-Similar Principle: Sequences of similar obstruents - i.e. ones differing at most with respect to voicing - are not permitted in English words. The Not-Too-Similar Principle motivates the schwa insertion rule.

Plausibility Schwa insertion:   [] / C1 ___ C2 (True in English) if C1 and C2 differ, at most, in voicing No sequence of similar C1C2 in English word. (True in English) Schwa insertion is a consequence of a general principle. Schwa deletion: []   / C1 ___ C2 unless C1 and C2 differ, at most, in voicing No sequence of non-similar C1C2 in English word. (Not True in English) It is not the case that schwa is always absent in English except between similar consonants. Therefore, analysis I is more plausible than analysis III.

Why Rules? Principles are more general than rules. They motivate changes. Violating a principle in an underlying form can be adequate enough to predict a change: /-/  [] So, why do we need rules?

Multiple Satisfiers Simply asserting the truth of a principle will not give us an analysis. Multiple alternatives will satisfy principles of English. To satisfy The Not-Too-similar Principle violated in the underlying /-/, we could also: delete one of the two consonants *[] or *[] change them to be less similar *[] insert something other than schwa *[] So, we need rules to effect a particular change.

Why a Particular Modification? Modifications take effect because they bring underlying representations into compliance with principles of phonological well-formedness. Certain types of modifications are more common than others. The preferred ones are those that result in minimal differences between related representations. Thus, this is the other force that rivals conditions on well-formedness.

Optimality Theory A number of possible modifications, accomplished by rules at an earlier stage, compete to satisfy a number of ranked constraints. The constraints represent two categories: markedness and faithfulness. Markedness constraints maintain conditions on well-formedness. Faithfulness constraints maintain the input (the underlying representation).

Mechanisms in OT In OT, the fundamental theoretical component of Universal Grammar is the set of constraints, CON, on representational well-formedness. These are the building blocks of individual grammars, that are rendered distinctive by language-particular rankings. Two other important universal mechanisms, namely GEN and EVAL, distinguish OT as a theory of parallel input-output relation. GEN (short for “generator”) is a function which operates on inputs to generate a set of possible candidate analyses. These analyses are the material which the language-particularly ranked CON evaluates utilising the other function EVAL (short for evaluator).

Markedness Constraints Voice Agreement Obstruent sequences may not differ with respect to [voice] at the end of an English word. Candidates Voice Agreement /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[] 

Markedness Constraints Not-Too-Similar Sequences of similar obstruents – i.e. ones differing at most with respect to voicing - are not permitted in English words. Candidates Not-Too-Similar /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[] 

Faithfulness Constraints Recover Morpheme Any morpheme in the underlying representation has a correspondent surface representation. Candidates Recover Morpheme /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[] 

Faithfulness Constraints Recover Identity Underlying and surface correspondent segments differ, at most, in voicing. Candidates Recover Identity /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[] 

Faithfulness Constraints Recover Voicing Underlying and surface correspondent segments do not differ with respect to [voice]. Candidates Recover Voicing /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[]  e. *[] 

Faithfulness Constraints Recover Adjacency Segments that are adjacent in the underlying representation must be adjacent in the surface representation. Candidates Recover Adjacency /-/ a. []  b. *[]  c. *[]  d. *[]  e. *[] 

Constraint Ranking Undominated Constraints never violated in any true output Voice Agreement, Not-Too-Similar, Recover Morpheme, Recover Identity >> Dominated Constraints can be violated in some true outputs Recover Adjacency >> Recover Voicing

Representational Conventions TABLEAUX Solid lines indicate crucial ranking while doted ones mean that the constraints on either sides are not mutually ranked. The leftmost constraint is the highest in the hierarchy, and the rightmost is the lowest. The asterisk (*) means that the relevant constraint is violated. A blank cell means that the relevant constraint is satisfied The exclamation mark (!) points to the fatal violation. The pointing finger () distinguishes the optimal form. Shading represents the irrelevance of the constraint or constraints in evaluating the harmony of a certain candidate analysis.

Can 1 ≻ Can 2, Can 3 ≻ Can 4 input CON 1 CON 2 CON 3 CON 4  Can 1 * *! Can 3 Can 4

/-/  [] *! * /-/ a.   b.  c.  d.  Voice Agreement Recover Morpheme Recover Identity Recover Adjacency Recover Voicing a.   b.  *! c.  d.  e.  *

/-/  [] * *! /-/ a.   b.  c.  d.  Voice Agreement Recover Morpheme Recover Identity Recover Adjacency Recover Voicing a.   * b.  *! c.  d.  e. 

/-/  [] * *! /-/ a.   b.  c.  d.  Not-Too-Similar Recover Morpheme Recover Identity Recover Adjacency Recover Voicing a.   * b.  *! c.  d.  e. 

Summing up Underlying forms undergo certain modifications to avoid violating phonotactic constraints. These modifications should represent minimal departure from the underlying form. So, a variety of correspondence constraints must be postulated. Yet, these constraints conflict. The only way to resolve this conflict is to assume constraint rankings, statements of priority. Therefore, the use of rules as descriptive tools is minimized and perhaps completely eliminated.

Can you define the following terms: Morphology What is morphology? What is a word? Can you define the following terms: morpheme, allomorph, word classes, affixation, inflection, derivation, compounding, hierarchical structure of words …