iceland2017.nelsconference.orgiceland2017.nelsconference.org/wp-content/uploads/... · Thesis to...

transcript

Transparadigmatic Output-Output Correspondence via Agreement-By-

Projection Nicholas Rolle

University of California, Berkeley

2017 North East Linguistic Society (NELS) October 27-29, 2017 University of Iceland

Thesis to support 1. I support the existence of a novel kind of Output-Output Correspondence which I

call Transparadigmatic Output-Output Correspondence (Tr-OO-C) [ . . x ]x [ . . x ]x [ROOT1-INFL1] <-> [[ROOT1-DERIV]-INFL1]

2. Tr-OO-C and other types of Output-Output Correspondence can be unified using Agreement-By-Projection (ABP) [sub-type of Agreement-By-Correspondence (ABC)] Main constraint schema: IDENT-BASEOUTPUT:OUTPUT(SIMILARITY IMPERATIVE)[SIMILARITY CONDITION]

3. Case study of Bolivian language Ese’eja demonstrating Tr-OO-C 2

1 Background

Deriving similarity in related words • There is a long history of observing similarity between morphologically related

words which is unexpected given other linguistic conditions in the language

• English minimal pair – same stress pattern (Davis 2005) • <capitalistic> capi[ɾ]alıstic capi[ɾ]al <capital>

• <militaristic> mıli[tʰ]arıstic mıli[tʰ]ary <military>

• ‘Paradigm uniformity’ of related forms subject of much discussion in pre-generative morphophonology, e.g. Kuryłowicz (1949) (Kager 1999:257) and diachronic work e.g. ‘Sturtevant’s Paradox’ (Sturtevant 1947, Campbell & Mixco 2007:193-194)

Output-Output Correspondence (OO-Corr) • McCarthy (1993), Benua (1995, 1997) - Surface forms depend in part on their

degree of faithfulness to other surface forms that they may be in ‘correspondence’ with by virtue of certain morphological relations (Burzio 1998:79)

• English minimal pair – same stress pattern (Davis 2005:109) • <capitalistic> [capi[ɾ]al-ıstic]x [capi[ɾ]al]x

• cf. <militaristic> mıli[tʰ]arıstic <-/-> *mili[ɾ]ary • <Mediterranean> Medi[tʰ]erranean <-/-> *Medi[ɾ]erranea • <abracadabra> abra[kʰ]adabra

OO-Corr Literature (sample) Chung 1983; McCarthy & Prince 1995; Benua 1995, 1997; Kenstowicz 1996; Burzio 1998, 2003, 2005, a.o.; Kager 1999; Steriade 2000, 2008; Alderete 2001; Potts & Pullum 2002; Van Oostendorp 2004; Raffelsiefen 2004;

Shiraishi 2004; Downing et al. (eds.) 2005; McCarthy 1993, 2005, a.o.; Jarosz 2005; Hall and Scott 2007; Bachrach & Nevins (eds.) 2008; Pariente 2012; Steriade & Yanovich 2015; Stanton & Steriade 2014; Stanton 2015; a.o.

2 A typology of OO-Corr

Typology of OO-Corr – Our starting point 1. Classic OO-Correspondence

2. Paradigmatic OO-Correspondence

3. Transparadigmatic OO-Correspondence (Novel type introduced today)

Terminology: Output & BaseO • Output: standard OT constituent derived from input via Gen & Eval • BaseOutput: output constituent selected as optimal in another derivation <capitalistic> Output (candidate) BaseOutput [capi[ɾ]al-ıstic]x [capi[ɾ]al]x • Asymetrical relationship: the Base can influence the Output, but not vice versa

• Null Hypothesis - no look-ahead/look-‘across‘ : i.e. in the Base‘s own I-O

derivation, the selection of optimal output is not sensative to its role as a base in other derivations

Terminology: S-Cond & S-Imp • Similarity Condition (S-COND): the independent similarity between an Output

and a BaseOutput which is a pre-condition for OO-Correspondence • Similarity Imperative (S-IMP): the similarity enforced between the Output and

BaseOutput by virtue of being in an OO-Correspondence relation

<capitalistic> Output (candidate) BaseOutput [capi[ɾ]al-ıstic]x [capi[ɾ]al]x

• S-COND: O and BO have identical morphological root √CAPITAL • .: S-IMP: O and BO have identical phonological form for root √CAPITAL • i.e. have identical foot structure ~ stress ~ phonetic realization • Terminology influenced from Hansson (2014) – Will be discussed further

Classic OO-Correspondence Classic OO Correspondence (Kager 1999:282) • The BaseOutput is an Output, i.e. a freestanding word (hence “transderivational”) • The BaseOutput contains a subset of the grammatical features of an output candidate • Strong form: The Base is a sub-constituent • Weak form: The Base is not necessarily a sub-constituent

• BO B • [root]x [root-affix]x

• S-COND: O and BO have identical morphological root √ROOT • S-IMP: O and BO have identical phonological form [root]

Classic OO-Correspondence • OO-Correspondence is morphologically triggered/conditioned • Spanish ɲ > n overapplication (Harris 1983, Kager 1999:294) • plural affix –es is OO-Corr trigger; affixes –ar and –oso are not

Input (UR) Output (Surface) Translation / desde[ɲ]/ \ desde[n] \ ‘disdain’ (n.) / desde[ɲ]-es / \ desde[n]es \ (*\ desde[ɲ]es \) ‘disdains’ (n. pl.) Cf. / desde[ɲ]-ar / \ desde[ɲ]ar] \ (*\ ...[n]ar \) ‘to disdain’ (v.) / desde[ɲ]-oso / \ desde[ɲ]oso \ (*\ ...[n]oso \) ‘disdainful’ (adj.) Output: \ desde[n]es \ S-COND: morphological root √DESDEN BaseOutput: \ desde[n] \ S-IMP: phonological root shape \ desde[n] \ 12

Paradigmatic OO-Correspondence • Paradigmatic OO-Correspondence – Same root, different affixes

[root-affix1[+F]]x [root-affix2[+F]] x [root-affix3[+F]] x ...

• Output forms are in an OO-Corr relationship by virtue of sharing the same root and sharing grammatical features placing it in a paradigm, e.g. bearing person/number/tense/aspect/etc. in a verbal paradigm

• Unlike Classic OO-Corr, in Paradigmatic OO-Corr the BaseOutput does not necessarily strictly contain a subset of the grammatical features of an Output Candidate

Paradigmatic OO-Correspondence “One of the central ideas of Paradigm Uniformity is that a phonological process (e.g. s-Dissimilation) can be blocked from applying or favored in applying to increase the identity of morphologically related words.” (Hall & Scott 2007:152)

Dialectal German Paradigmatic OO-Corr (Condensed)

[+F] warden essen INF [wɛ:r-ən] [ɛs-ən] 1SG [wɛ:r-ən] [ɛs-ən] 2SG [wɛ:r-ʃt] [ɛ-ʃt] 3SG [wɛ:r-t] [ɛs-t] ( x[ɛʃ-t] ) IMP.SG [wɛ:r] [ɛs] PST.PART [wo:r-t] [gəsas]

Dialectal German Underapplication of s>ʃ/_{t/p} (cf. post [poʃt])

S-Cond: root √ESSEN & feature [+F]

[+F] warden essen INF [wɛ:r-ən] [ɛs-ən] 1SG [wɛ:r-ən] [ɛs-ən] 2SG [wɛ:r-ʃt] [ɛ-ʃt] 3SG [wɛ:r-t] [ -t] ( x[ɛʃ-t] ) IMP.SG [wɛ:r] [ɛs] PST.PART [wo:r-t] [gəsas]

S-Imp:

BaseOutput: One~Some~All members of [+F]

Transparadigmatic OO-Corr (Tr-OO-C) • Burzio (1998, 2003, 2005, a.o.), Pariente (2008): there are “correspondence

relations between forms of the same Morphological Structure (Italian participles) and even between words sharing a suffix” (Pariente 2008, emphasis mine)

• Transparadigmatic OO-Correspondence (Tr-OO-C)

[ [root]-affix1]x [ [root-affix2]-affix1]x

[root1-affix1]x [root2-affix1]x

• Correspondence which shares the exact same inflection but different stems (e.g. bare root vs. derivational root) or different roots

• Like Classic – contains proper subset

• Like Paradigmatic – part of the Similarity Condition involves outer affix

Paradigmatic vs. Transparadigmatic

4 Tense/Mood (T/M) INFL

1st π ------ 2nd π ------ 3rd π ------

(φ INFL...)

TR-OO-CORR: Correspondence across counterpart cells in equivalent paradigms (across

PA-OO-CORR: Correspondence among cells within the same paradigm (within same color)

Support for Tr-OO-C in literature Modern Hebrew Pharyngeal Vocalization (Pariente 2008) ‘Grammatical Paradigm BaseO: R1-I1 <-> Output: R2-I1 Uniformity’ S-COND: Affix I1 S-IMP: Moraic structure Brazilian Portuguese l-to-i Overapplication (Bachrach & Nevins 2008) BaseO: R1-I1 <-> Output: R1-D-I1

S-COND: √ROOT & Affix I1 S-IMP: Root Shape CiBemba Spirantization Overapplication (Hyman 1994, 2003) BaseO: R1-D1 <-> Output: R1-D2-D1

S-COND: √ROOT & Affix D1 S-IMP: Root Shape Jita Stem Uniformity via affix doubling (Downing 2005) BaseO: R1-D1 <-> Output: R1-D1-D2-D1

S-COND: √ROOT & Affix D1 S-IMP: Stem Shape

3 Tr-OO-C case study: Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental

Uniformity in Ese’eja

Background on Ese’eja • Ese’eja language [ese] (Tacanan: Bolivia/Peru)

[alt. names: Ese Ejja, “Chama”]

• 4 vowels /i e a o/, 3 diphthongs /ia io oe/ Adjacent vowels treated as separate vowels (evidence from accent shifts)

• Spelling : /tʃ/ <ch>, /ʔ/ <’>, /ɓ/ <b>, /ɗ/ <d>, /ʃ/ <sh>, /χ/ <j>, /ɲ/ <n>, /j/ <y>

Background on Ese’eja • Data are from collaboration with Marine

Vuillermet (CNRS - DDL) (Vuillermet PhD 2012, field notes, recordings, corpora, p.c.)

• Prosody data used here is largely elicited by Vuillermet, from one highly proficient speaker

• Caveat: Prosody is subject to (constrained) inter-/intra-speaker variation, requiring further large-scale documentation

‘Normal’ accent assignment with verbs

• In Verbs, Phonological Accent is morphologically assigned (analysis in Vuillermet 2012; Rolle 2016; Rolle & Vuillermet in press)

• Determined by: 1. Verb transitivity 2. Idiosyncratic properties of inflectional morpheme

• This Phonological Accent is mapped to Primary Stress which appears on one of

the first three syllables of the prosodic word Left-Edge 3σ Window

‘Normal’ accent - Left-Edge 3σ Window

Intransitive Tense/Mood 1 -me POT1

Tense/Mood 2 -nahe PST

Tense/Mood 3 -kyae POT2

Tense/Mood 4 -ani PRS -he FUT

1-σ pa ‘cry’

Ø pá-me pá-na.he pá-kya.e pá-a.ni pá-he 3AGR pa-ká-me pá-ka-na.he pá-ka-kya.e pá-ka-a.ni pá-ka-he

2-σ besa ‘bathe’

Ø be.sá-me bé.sa-na.he be.sá-kya.e bé.sa-a.ni bé.sa-he 3AGR be.sa-ká-me bé.sa-ka-na.he bé.sa-ka-kya.e be.sá-ka-a.ni be.sá-ka-he

3-σ towaa ‘jump’

Ø to.wa.á-me to.wá.a-na.he tó.wa.a-kya.e to.wá.a-a.ni to.wá.a-he 3AGR to.wá.a-ka-me tó.wa.a-ka-na.he tó.wa.a-ka-kya.e tó.wa.a-ka-ani tó.wa.a-ka-he

Transitive Tense/Mood 1 -me POT1

Tense/Mood 2 -nahe PST

Tense/Mood 3 -kyae POT2

Tense/Mood 4 -ani ~ -aña PRS -he FUT

1-σ kwya ‘hit X’

Ø kwyá-me kwyá-na.he kwyá-kya.e kwyá-a.ña kwyá-he 3AGR kwya-ká-me kwyá-ka-na.he -ka.kya.e kwyá-ka-a.ni kwyá-ka-he

2-σ bana ‘sow X’

Ø ba.ná-me ba.ná-na.he ba.ná-kya.e ba.ná-a.ña ba.ná-he 3AGR ba.na-ká-me bá.na-ka-na.he bá.na-ka-kya.e ba.ná-ka-a.ni ba.ná-ka-he

3-σ ishe’a ‘wait for X’

Ø i.she.’á–me í.she.’a-na.he í.she.’a-kya.e í.she.’a-a.ña í.she.’a-he 3AGR i.shé.’a-ka-me í.she.’a-ka-na.he í.she.’a-ka-kya.e í.she.’a-ka-a.ni í.she.’a-ka-he

‘Normal’ accent assignment with verbs

• Rolle (2016) & Rolle & Vuillermet in press – Analysis using only Input-Output Correspondence and Markedness constraints without appeal to Output-Output Correspondence (i.e. no transderivational influence)

• Take away points: 1. Primary stress falls idiosyncratically but regularly on one of first three syllables

2. This algorithm only works with verbs without derivational morphology, i.e. simplex stems

3. This algorithm makes wrong predictions for verbs with derivational morphology , i.e. complex stems

Deriv. morpheme Translation Expresses Morph. Slot 1 -REDUP Detransitive Reduplication [+1]

2 -hya ‘go(O), away’ Assoc. Motion [+5]

3 -‘yo ‘completely’ Telicity [+9] 4 -mee ‘make’ Causative [+2] 5 -ki ‘away from’ Assoc. Motion [+5] 6 ja-_-ki Valency reducing middle [-2] _ [+4] … ~ 40 other derivational morphemes/structures [-2]…[+10]

Special accent assignment with derivated verbs (complex stems) Derivational morphology:

Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental Uniformity

Deriv. Inflectional T/M accent groups

Root woó-chana σσ-chana

jeki-ká-me σσ-ká-me

bésa-ka-nahe σσ-ka-nahe

jekí-ka-ani σσ-ka-ani

Detrans. REDUP

kwakwá- kwakwa-chana

kwakwa- kwákwa-ka-chana

kwákwa- kwakwa-ka-nahe

kwakwá- kwakwa-ka-he

-hya ‘go’ woó-hya-me jeki-hyá-ka-me sípo-hya-ka-nahe sipó-hya-ka-aña -‘yo TELIC waná-'yo-kwe ishwa-ká-'yo-me káwi-ka-‘yo-nahe kekwá-ka-he-'yo

Detrans. REDUP

Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental Uniformity Lack of consistency across rows

Top row Root = BaseOutput

Detrans. REDUP

Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental Uniformity to BaseO on 2nd or 3rd σ

Detrans. REDUP

-hya ‘go’ woó-hya-me jeki-hyá-ka-me sípo-hya-ka-nahe sipó-hya-ka-aña -‘yo TELIC waná-'yo-kwe ishwa-ká-'yo-me káwi-ka-‘yo-nahe kekwá-ka-he-'yo 2nd σ stress 3rd σ stress

Detrans. REDUP

-hya ‘go’ woó-hya-me jeki-hyá-ka-me sípo-hya-ka-nahe sipó-hya-ka-aña -‘yo TELIC waná-'yo-kwe ishwa-ká-'yo-me káwi-ka-‘yo-nahe kekwá-ka-he-'yo 1st σ stress 2nd σ stress

Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental Uniformity to BaseO on 1st or 2nd σ

Wrong predications if using IO-Corr

Inflected Stre

Expected

w/ OO-Corr Accent Expected w/ IO-CORR

pá-me 1 hyó-hyo-me

◌◌]-me

x hyo-hyó-me cf. baná-me pa-ká-me 2 hyo-hyó-ka-me x hyo-hyo-ká-me cf. jeki-ká-me ba.ná-me 2 sipó-hya-me x sipo-hyá-me cf. i.she.’á–me be.sa-ká-me 3 sipo-hyá-ka-me x sipó-hya-ka-me

/sipo-hya-ká-me/ > [(sipó)(hyakà)me]

cf. ishé’a-ka-me

pa-ká-me 2 mo-ká-'yo-me mo-ka-'yó-me cf. jeki-ká-me

2 bé.sa-na.he 1 bésa-'yo-nahe ◌◌]-nahe x besá-'yo-nahe cf. towáa-nahe

pá-kya.e 1 hyó-hyo-kyae

◌◌]-kyae

x hyo-hyó-kyae cf. besá-kyae

ba.ná-kya.e 2 woó-hya-kyae x wóo-hya-kyae /woo-hyá-kyae/ > [(wóo)(hyàkya)e]

cf. tówaa-kyae

be.sá-ka-he 2 ojá-hya-ka-he

◌◌]-he

x ója-hya-ka-he / ója-hyá-ka-he / > [(ója)(hyàka)he]

cf. tówaa-ka-he

kwyá-ka-he 1 bá-ka-'yo-ani x ba-ká-'yo-ani cf. besá-ka-ani

Inflected Stre

Expected

◌◌]-me

cf. ishé’a-ka-me

◌◌]-kyae

cf. tówaa-kyae

◌◌]-he

cf. tówaa-ka-he

Inflected Stre

Expected

◌◌]-me

cf. ishé’a-ka-me

◌◌]-kyae

cf. tówaa-kyae

◌◌]-he

cf. tówaa-ka-he

Ese’eja Suprasegmental Uniformity • Output: BaseOutput:

\ [root-deriv]-infl \ \ root-infl \ S-COND: √αROOT & αINFL S-IMP:

• Unlike other potential cases of Tr-OO-C (summarized above), this cannot be reduced to (1) allomorphy selection under specific conditions without stipulation, nor to (2) a cyclic model without major stipulation as well

4 Tr-OO-Corr via AB‘P’

Schema of OO-Corr Typology

Schema Type Output BaseO Class-OO-C R-I R Para-OO-C R-I1[+F] R-I2[+F]

Tr-OO-C R-D-I R-I

Central Theoretical Claim • Transparadigmatic Output-Output Correspondence and the full typology of OO-

Corr are derived via a subtype of Agreement-By-Correspondence (Rose & Walker 2004, a.o.), termed Agreement-By-‘Projection‘ (Hansson 2014)

• Recognition of similarities between OO-Corr and Agreement-By-Correspondence (Hansson 2007:405, fn 8; Bennett 2015), but no implementation

• Other implementation of Agreement-By-Correspondence in Morphology (Sande 2017)

Agreement-By-Correspondence (ABC) • Agreement-By-Correspondence (ABC) - two logical components:

• Correspondence relation (e.g. Cx) : Corr-CC([S-Cond]) Capture the Similarity Condition

• Agreement relation (e.g. [αF]) : Ident-CC([S-Imp]) Capture the Similarity Imperative

• Larger Bibliography (Stephanie Shih & Sharon Inkelas compilers): http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~inkelas/ABCBibliography.html

Agreement-By-‘Projection’ (ABP) Agreement-By-’Projection’ (ABP) – Hansson (2014)

• “Conflates the work of (high-ranked) Corr constraints and CC-Ident[F] into a single constraint” (Hansson 2014:17)

• Compare Tier-based Approaches – Rose & Walker 2004:514 for references

Projection

• “any well-defined class of segments defines (projects) a subsequence of the output string, consisting of all and only the segments belonging to that class , e.g. the subsequence of a string S which results from “removing” all non-members of the natural class [+F, –G, +H] from S” (Hansson 2014:15) 41

Agreement-By-‘Projection’ (ABP) • Projection of the word < choosiness > /tʃuzinɛs/ (Hansson 2014:15)

• General constraint schema: Ident([S-IMP])[S-COND]

• Ident([αanterior])[+strident] 42

Input: / sipo- /R + / -hya /D + /-◌...ka /I + / -◌me /I

TR-OO-C ID-BOO(melody, LR)[αROOT],[αINFL]

PARA-OO-C ID-BOO(melody, LR)[αSTEM],[INFL[+F] ]

TR-OO-C ID-BOO(accent) [αROOT],[αINFL] I

O1 ☞ [ . . x . . ] [sipoR-hyaD-kaI-meI]

O2 [ . x . . . ] [sipóR-hyaD-kaI-meI]

1 ! 1 1 1

O3 [ x . . . . ] [sípoR-hyaD-kaI-meI]

1 ! 1 1

O4 [ . x . x . ] [(sipoR)-(hyaD-kàI)-meI ] (Expected under IO)

1 ! 1 !

n/a [ . x . x . ] [(sipoR)-(hyaD-kàI)-meI ]

Ese’eja accent via ABP

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

Quick Detour - Determining the Base • Within OO-Corr, relationship between Output Candidates and BaseO

• We can get Output Candidates via Gen – where do we get BaseOs from?

• In most analyses: The BaseO is just there in the derivation • However: Stanton & Steriade 2014; Stanton 2015; Bermudez-Otero‘s work – Remote vs. Local Bases

• Determing the BaseO – what are the correlates of being a base? (cf. Van Oostendoorp 2004)

1. More informative (Albright 2002)

2. Morphologically simpler words >morphologically complex words Canonically contains a subset of features/morphemes/linguistic units

3. An output form 47

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

Base Pool of BO’s: Tr-OO-C: S-COND: R, I1, I2 BO1: [ . . x . ] [ sipoR-káI-meI ] Para-OO-C: S-COND: [R, D]Stem, I1, I3 BO2: [ x . . . . . ] [ sípoR-hyaD-kaI-naheI ] Classic-OO-C (this form does not exist): S-COND: R, D, I1 xBO: x[ sipoR-hyaD-kaI ]

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

IO Accent Assignment would place accent on –ka, which then shifts to fit into L3σ metrical window Cf. 3σ root ishe’aR-kaI-meI ishe’aR-káI-meI (ishe)(’aR-kàI)-meI

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

[ . x . x . ] [(sipoR)-(hyaD-kàI)-meI ] No Projection: Candidate not ‘corresponding‘ to a BaseO

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

1 ! 1 1 1

1 ! 1 1

1 ! 1 !

5 Summary & Discussion

Summary 1. I proposed the existence of a novel kind of Output-Output Correspondence which

I call Transparadigmatic Output-Output Correspondence (Tr-OO-C) [ . . x ]x [ . . x ]x [ROOT1-INFL1] <-> [[ROOT1-DERIV]-INFL1]

2. Supported its existence from Transparadigmatic Suprasegmental Uniformity in the Bolivian language Ese’eja

3. Derived Tr-OO-C via Agreement-By-Projection (ABP) (a sub-type of ABC) Schema: IDENT-BASEOUTPUT:OUTPUT(SIMILARITY IMPERATIVE)[SIMILARITY CONDITION]

EE accent: IDENT-BO:O(MELODY,LR)[αROOT],[αINFL]

Towards a bona fide factorial typology • Three constraint families: 1. Id-BOO(Root_Shape)[ αF ] The root shape of a BaseO is in an Output Candidate 2. Id-OBO(Root_Shape)[ αF ] The root shape of an Output Candidate is in a BaseO 3. Markedness

Towards a bona fide factorial typology Note

Paradigm Uniformity (e.g. Optimal Paradigms – McCarthy 2005)

Majority Rules Effects – Identity with most common form in a paradigm

Id-BOO(Shape)[+F] >> M

Base_in_Output >> M Id-BOO(Root_Shape)[αR],[Infl[+F]]

“Inflection dependence” (Steriade 2008)

Least Marked Effects – Identity with the least marked form in a paradigm

Id-OBO(Shape)[+F] >> M >>

Id-BOO(Shape)[+F] Output_in_Base >> M >> Base_in_Output Id-OBO(Root_Shape)[αR]

>> M >> Id-BOO(Root_Shape)[αR]

Acknowledgments • Marine Vuillermet (Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage, CNRS, Lyon, France)

• Berkeley support: Sharon Inkelas, Larry Hyman, Florian Lionnet, Zach O’Hagan, Brian Smith, Amalia Skilton, Andrew Garrett, Eric Wilbanks, Keith Johnson, Virginia Dawson, Hannah Sande, Lev Michael, Chris Baier

• Audience at AMP 2017

• Itsik Pariente

• Ese‘eja consultants on this project, esp. the late Kanono (Calixto Callaú Casirno)

References are found in the slides on my website

References Albright, Adam. 2002. The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. PhD UCLA. Alderete, J., 2001. Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. Psychology Press. Bachrach, A., Nevins, A., 2008a. Introduction: Approaching inflectional identity. Inflectional Identity 1–28. Bachrach, A., Nevins, A., 2008b. Inflectional Identity. OUP Oxford. Benua, L., 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. Benua, L., 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. PhD Amherst. Bermúdez-Otero, R., 2008. Stratal optimality theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, R., 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. Morphol. Phonol. Exponence 41, 8–83. Burzio, L., 1998. Multiple correspondence. Lingua 104, 79–109. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00025-9 Burzio, L., 2003. Output-to-output faithfulness in phonology: the Italian connection. Lingue E Linguaggio 2, 69–104. Burzio, L., 2005. Sources of paradigm uniformity. In Downing, L.J., Hall, T.A., Raffelsiefen, R., (eds.). Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford University Press. Campbell, L. & M. Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 193-194 Chung, S., 1983. Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Language 35–66. Davis, S., 2005. Capitalistic v. militaristic: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing, L.J., Hall, T.A., Raffelsiefen, R., (eds.). Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford University

Press. Downing, L., Hall, T. A., & Raffelsiefen, R. (Eds.). 2005. Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downing, L.J., 2005. Jita causative doubling provides optimal paradigms. In Downing, L.J., Hall, T.A., Raffelsiefen, R., (eds.). Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford University Press. Hall, T.A. & J. H. G. Scott. 2007. Inflectional paradigms have a base: Evidence from s-dissimilation in Southern German dial-ects. Morphology 17:151-178. Hansson, G. 2014. (Dis)agreement by (Non)correspondence. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference. 3-62. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2007) Blocking effects in agreement by correspondence. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 395-409. Harris, James. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Hyman, L.M., 1994. Cyclic phonology and morphology in Cibemba. Perspect. Phonol. 81–112. Hyman, L.M., 2003. Sound change, misanalysis, and analogy in the Bantu causative. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 24, 55–90. Inkelas, S. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study from dominance. In Booij & Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer

Netherlands. 121-155. Jarosz, G., 2005. Polish yers and the finer structure of output-output correspondence. BLS Proceedings. 181–192. Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Kenstowicz, M., 1996. Uniform exponence and base identity. J. Durand and B. Laks. Curr. Trends Phonol. 363–393. Kenstowicz, M., 2005. Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Downing, L.J., Hall, T.A., Raffelsiefen, R., (eds.). Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, P. 1984. A compositional approach to Vedic word accent. In Joshi (ed.), Amrtadhara. Delhi: Ajanta Publications. 201-210. Kiparsky, P., 2015. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. Capturing Phonol. Shades Lang. 2, 44. 64

References Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. La nature des proces dits ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 5:15-37 [Reprinted in E. Hamp et al. (Eds.). 1996. Readings in linguistics II. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press]. McCarthy, J.J., 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Downing, L.J., Hall, T.A., Raffelsiefen, R., (eds.). Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford University Press. McCarthy, John J and Alan Prince. 1995. "Faithfulness and reduplicative identity" University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (1995) McCarthy, John. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38: 169-195 Pariente, I., 2012. Grammatical paradigm uniformity. Morphology 1–30. Potts, Christopher & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. Model theory and the content of OT constraints. Phonology 19 (2002) 361–393 Raffelsiefen, R., 2004. Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophonological effects. Phonology 21, 91–142. Rolle, N. & M. Vuillermet. in press. Morphologically assigned accent and an initial three syllable window in Ese’eja. In R. Goedemans, H. v. d. Hulst & J. Heinz (eds.), The study of word stress and

accent: Theories, methods and data. CUP. Rolle, N. 2016. Rhythmic Repair of Morphological Accent Assigned Outside of a Metrical Window. In Supplemental Proceedings AMP 2016, USC. Rose, S., Walker, R., 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80, 475–531. Sande, Hannah. 2017. Distributing morphologically conditioned phonology: Three case studies from Guébie.” UC Berkeley Dissertation. Shiraishi, Hidetoshi. 2004. Base-Identity and the noun-verb asymmetry in Nivkh. In Dicky Gilbers, Maartje Schreuder & Nienke Knevel (eds.), On the boundaries of phonology and phonetics.

159-182. Groningen: University of Groningen. Stanton, J. & D. Steriade. 2014. Stress windows and Base Faithfulness in English suffixal derivatives. 22mfm Meeting. http://web.mit.edu/juliets/www/stantonsteriade22mfm.pdf Stanton, Juliet. 2015. Factorial Typology and Accentual Faithfulness. In Ulrike Steindl et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 54–63. Somerville, MA:

Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Steriade, D. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V. Acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 313–

334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steriade, D., 2008. A pseudo-cyclic effect in Romanian morphophonology. Inflectional Identity 18. Sturtevant, E. H. 1947, An Introduction to Linguistic Science, New Haven, Yale University Press Van Oostendorp, M. 2004. The theory of faithfulness. Ms. Vuillermet, M. 2012. A Grammar of Ese Ejja. Diss, Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Appendix 1: ‘Normal’ Ese’eja accent assignment

Accent assgnm’t: 1] Transitivity accent

Intransitive Transitive

a. 1σ pa- ‘cry’ kwyá- ‘hit X’

b. 2σ besa- ‘bathe’ baná- ‘sow X’

c. 3σ towaa- ‘jump’ ishe’á- ‘wait for X’ /iʃeʔá-/

Assign accent to ultima of root ◌◌ ]root-Ø

Transitive accent is wavy underlined

2] Indexical accent

Verbs inflected for 3rd person agreement indexed with–ka 3SG

Assign accent to initial syllable of stem [ ◌◌…]stem-ka i. Indexical accent is double-underlined

Indexical accent is dominant – overrides accent present, neutralizes intransitive & transitive (Kiparsky 1984, Inkelas 1998)

Dominant indexical accent [ ◌◌…]stem-ka - overriding transitive accent Intransitive Transitive 1-σ pa- + -ka pá-ka- kwyá-+ -ka kwyá-ka- 2-σ besa- + -ka bésa-ka- baná- + -ka bána-ka- 3-σ towaa- + -ka tówaa-ka- ishe’á- + -ka íshe’a-ka-

3] Tense/Mood accent

Category Subcategory Morpheme(s) Morphological slot(s) T/M Pattern

PRESENT -ani ~ aña +11 4 PRESENT -(e)ki +11 4 PRESENT -haa +11 4 PRESENT -ba’e +11 4 FUTURE -he +8 4

REMOTE PAST -a =pwá1 +11 (+clitic) - PAST -(a)nahe +11 2

Mood/ Commands

POTENTIAL 2 -kyae +11 3 POTENTIAL 1 -me +11 1

EXTERNAL OBLIGATION -ka…-ji +6 …+11 1 IMPERATIVE -kwe +11 1 PROHIBITIVE a’a …-ji (particle) …+11 1

APPREHENSIVE -chana +11 1

3] Tense/Mood accent

Category Subcategory Morpheme(s) Morphological slot(s) T/M Pattern

PRESENT -ani ~ aña +11 4 PRESENT -(e)ki +11 4 PRESENT -haa +11 4 PRESENT -ba’e +11 4 FUTURE -he +8 4

REMOTE PAST -a =pwá1 +11 (+clitic) - PAST -(a)nahe +11 2

Mood/ Commands

POTENTIAL 2 -kyae +11 3 POTENTIAL 1 -me +11 1

EXTERNAL OBLIGATION -ka…-ji +6 …+11 1 IMPERATIVE -kwe +11 1 PROHIBITIVE a’a …-ji (particle) …+11 1

APPREHENSIVE -chana +11 1

3] Tense/Mood accent These assign accent to the ultima or penult of the stem Indicated with a dotted underline

T/M Accent assignment

Position in stem

Examples w/ intransitive roots 1-σ 2-σ 3-σ Gloss

1 ◌◌]stem-sfx Ultima pá]-me besá]-me towaá]-me POT1

2 ◌◌]stem-sfx Penult pá]-nahe bésa]-nahe towáa]-nahe PST

3 ◌◌]stem-sfx Ultima pá]-kyae besá]-kyae towaá]-kyae POT2

4 ◌◌]stem-sfx Penult pá]-he bésa]-he towáa]-he FUT

Competition b/w Morph. Accents

Accent

T/M Input accent + T/M accent Example Win

-ner Transitive Indexical Transitive Indexical

ve 2 …σ] + ◌◌]-sfx [σ…-ka] + ◌◌]-sfx baná]-nahe

ishe’á]-nahe bána-ka]-nahe íshe’a-ka]-nahe

3 …σ] + ◌◌]-sfx [σ…-ka] + ◌◌]-sfx baná]-kyae ishe’á]-kyae

bána-ka]-kyae íshe’a-ka]-kyae

ng 1 …σ] + ◌◌]-sfx [σ…-ka] + ◌◌]-sfx baná]-me

ishe’á]-me bana-ká]-me

ishe’a-ká]-me Right

4 …σ] + ◌◌]-sfx [σ…-ka] + ◌◌]-sfx baná]-he ishe’á]-he

baná-ka]-he ishe’á-ka]-he

Accent competition Outputs to word-level phonology

Accent

Outputs to word-level phonology

Mapping of Accent to Primary Stress

A B C D E F

T/M Stem type Morphological accent Iterative footing

LEFTMOST constraint

Foot type

1 Intr towaá-me to.(wa.á).me to.(wa.á).me

Iamb Trans. ishe’á-me i.(she.’á).me i.(she.’á).me -ka ishe’a-ká-me (i.shé).(’a.ká).me (i.shé).(’a.kà).me

2 Intr. towáa-nahe to.(wá.a).(ná.he) to.(wá.a).(nà.he)

Trochee Trans. ishe’á-nahe (í.she).(’á.na).he (í.she).(’à.na).he -ka íshe’a-ka-nahe (í.she).(’á.ka).(ná.he) (í.she).(’à.ka).(nà.he)

3 Intr. towaá-kyae (tó.wa).(á.kya).e (tó.wa).(à.kya).e

Trochee Trans. ishe’á-kyae (í.she).(’á.kya).e (í.she).(’à.kya).e -ka íshe’a-ka-kyae (í.she).(’á.ka).(kyá.e) (í.she).(’à.ka).(kyà.e)

4 Intr. towáa-he to.(wá.a).he to.(wá.a).he

Trochee Trans. ishe’á-he (í.she).(’á.he) (í.she).(’à.he) -ka ishe’á-ka-he (í.she).(’á.ka).he (í.she).(’à.ka).he

Ese‘eja as a Dual Rhythm Language – Iambs & Trochees

A B C D E F

LEFTMOST constraint

Foot type

Mapping: Left 3σ Metrical Window

A B C D E F

LEFTMOST constraint

Foot type

Rhythmic ‘repair’: Primary stress realized on position rhythmically dependent on accent position (Rolle 2016)

A B C D E F

LEFTMOST constraint

Foot type

Appendix 2: Against a Cyclicity Alternative

Cyclicity alternative One traditional and still prominent alternative to Output-Output Correspondence involves strict IO-CORR but with Cyclicity, e.g. Stratal OT (Bermu dez-Otero 2008, 2012; Kiparsky 2015; a.o.)

Against a Cyclic Model

Against a Cyclic Model Given that inflectional suffixes assign accent to stems and derivational suffixes do not

Then, derivational morphemes would merge with roots after inflectional morphemes merge and assign accent in order for there to be cyclic preservation 83

Against a Cyclic Model Given that inflectional suffixes assign accent to stems and derivational suffixes do not

Then, derivational morphemes would merge with roots after inflectional morphemes merge and assign accent in order for there to be cyclic preservation 84

Against a Cyclic Model Because derivational affixes are inert but visible , i.e. target-able, in accent assignment

Then a complicated interfixation story is required: derivational morphemes interfix only on the segmental tier

Suprasegmental tier remains unaffected

iceland2017.nelsconference.orgiceland2017.nelsconference.org/wp-content/uploads/... · Thesis to...

Documents