January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon1 Empirical Relevance Local conjunction has seen many empirical applications; here, vowel harmony

January 24-25, 2003

Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon

1

Empirical Relevance

• Local conjunction has seen many empirical applications; here, vowel harmony

• Lango (Nilotic, Uganda) ATR harmony– Woock & Noonan =79– Archangeli & Pulleyblank ‘91 et seq., esp. =94

• Markedness: – *[+ATR, hi/fr]– *[ATR, +hi/fr]– *[+A]/σclosed – HD-L[ATR]

Rather than imposing a parametric superstructure on spreading rules (A&P ’94),

we build the grammar directly from these markedness constraints

marked articulatorily

Paul Smolensky

for non-linguist audiences two harmonies is too much: vowel assimilation, Harmony max

Paul Smolensky

For non-linguists be more explicit about which complicated stuff they are and are not expected to understand

January 24-25, 2003


2

Lango ATR Harmony• Inventory of ATR domains D [ATR] (~ tiers) • Vowel harmony renders many possibilities

ungrammatical ’yourSING/PLUR stew’:

dk +Cí *d k k í dè kk í * d kk ATR: + [ ] [ +] [ + +0] [ 0 ]

dk+wú dkwú *dèkwú *dkw critical difference:

i[+fr] vs. u[fr]

[fr] ‘worse’ source for [+ATR] spreadviolates *[+ATR, fr] — marked w.r.t. ATR

• Complex system: interaction of 6 dimensions (26 = 64 distinct environments)

January 24-25, 2003


3

VATR (Potential: Source of ATR; Target of ATR )

/ VATR (C).C V ATR/ / V ATR (C).C VATR/ hi hi hi hi

fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr

Lango

ATR-domain inventory

i _ u _ e _ o/ _ _ i _ u _ e _ o/ hi [i° i] [u° i] [e° i] [o° i] [ i i°] [i u°] e o fr hi [i° e] [u° e] [e° e] [o° e] [e i°] [e u°] e o hi [i° u] [u° u] [e° u] [o° u] [u i°] [u u°] [° ] [° ]

C fr hi / a [i° o] [u° o] [e° o] [o° o] [o i°] [o u°] [° ] [° ]

hi [i° i] [u° i] e o [i i°] [i u°] e o fr hi [i° e] [u° e] e o [e i°] u e o

hi [i° u] [u° u] e o [u i°] [u u°] [° ] [° ]

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi / a [i° o] [u° o] e o [o i°] u [° ] [° ]

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

January 24-25, 2003


4




Lango





hi [i° u] [u° u] e o [u i°] [u u°] [° ] [° ]

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi / a [i° o] [u° o] e o [o i°] u [° ] [° ]

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

dk +Cí dèkkí

January 24-25, 2003


5




Lango





hi [i° u] [u° u] e o [u i°] [u u°] [° ] [° ]

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi / a [i° o] [u° o] e o [o i°] u [° ] [° ]

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

dk+wú dkwú

January 24-25, 2003


6




Lango





hi [i° u] [u° u] e o [u i°] [u u°] [° ] [° ]

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi / a [i° o] [u° o] e o [o i°] u [° ] [° ]

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

January 24-25, 2003


7

The Lango Challenge

Need a grammatical framework able to handle this nightmarish descriptive complexitywhile staying strictly within the confines of rigidly universal (markedness) principles

January 24-25, 2003


8

ATR rules:Lang

o rulesArchangeli & Pulleyblank ‘94

α β

ATR

V C V

ATR

V (C)C V

ATR rules: a b c

ATR

V C V

hi

ATR

V (C)C V

hi

ATR

V (C)C V

hi fr

x

ATR

V (C)C V

hi fr

ATR rule:

Why not … ?

A&P: Rule Template+hi

+fr

January 24-25, 2003


9




Lango

Rule-based

account

i _ u _ e _ o/ _ _ i _ u _ e _ o/ hi α β α β α α a b c a b fr hi α β α β α α a c a hi α β α β α α a b c a b x x

C fr hi / a α β α β α α a c a x x

hi β β b c b fr hi β β c

hi β β b c b x x

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi / a β β c x x

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

January 24-25, 2003


10



Markedness

of ATR domains


hi fr

hi

hi C

fr hi

hi fr

hi

hi

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ V V/ +ATR ATR

favors: +ATR ATR

January 24-25, 2003


11


/ VATR (C).C V ATR/ / V ATR (C).C VATR/ hi hi(1) hi hi(1)


Lango 1

*VA C. &D[ATR] *[ hi, A]&*HD[A]

hi fr

hi

hi C

fr hi

hi fr

hi

hi

V A

TR

(Pot

entia

l: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C(1)

fr(1) hi

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

* 1 * 1

*[+A]/σclosed &D[A]

*[hi,+A]/HD[A]

“No [ATR] spread into a closed syllable from a [hi] source”

*

*

cont*[+cont]

velar

*[velar]

2

1

xs+

kt

+

*

*

cont

velar2

1

xs+

kt

+

BOWOW

*[+cont] &seg *[velar]

January 24-25, 2003


12


/ VATR (C).C V ATR/ / V ATR (C).C VATR/ hi hi hi hi2


hi fr

hi

hi C

fr hi

hi fr

hi

hi

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

2 / VATR (C).C V ATR/

/ V ATR (C).C VATR/

hi VATR hi

* 2

* 2

BOWOW*[hi, A] & HD-L[A]

“No regressive [ATR] spread from a [hi] source”

3

January 24-25, 2003


13




hi X Y Z X Y Z X Y X Y Y Z Y Z Y 2 Y 2 fr hi X Y Z X Y Z X Y X Y Y Z Y Z Y 2 Y 2

hi X Z X Z X X Z Z 2 2 C

fr hi X Z X Z X X Z Z 2 2

hi X Y Z X Y Z X Y 1 X Y 1 Y Z Y Z Y 1 2 Y 1 2 fr hi X Y Z X Y Z X Y 1 X Y 1 Y Z Y Z 3 Y 1 2 Y 1 2 3

hi X Z X Z X 1 X 1 Z Z 1 2 1 2

V A

TR

(Pot

ential

: A

TR

Sou

rce;

A

TR T

arge

t)

C.C

fr hi X Z X Z X 1 X 1 Z Z 3 1 2 1 2 3

[° ] [ °] [ °] [ ° ] Key:

/ VV / ATR ATR

/ VV/ +ATR ATR

X,Y,Z: *[A] 1,2,3: *[+A]

≫ AGREE ≫ F[A]

January 24-25, 2003


14


The Lango Challenge

x

ATR

V (C)C V

hi fr

ATR rule:

Would require *[ATR, hi/fr]

— nonexistent

Why not … ?

+hi+fr

January 24-25, 2003


15

The Lango Challenge


OT with conjunctive constraint interaction

January 24-25, 2003


16

Inherent Typology

• Method applicable to related African languages, where the same markedness constraints govern the inventory (Archangeli & Pulleyblank ’94), but with different interactions: different rankings and active conjunctions

• Part of a larger typology including a range of vowel harmony systems

January 24-25, 2003


17

Summary• OT builds formal grammars directly from

markedness: MARK … with FAITH

• Inventories consistent with markedness relations are formally the result of OT … with local conjunction: TLC[Φ], SHarC theorem

• Even highly complex patterns can be explained purely with simple markedness constraints: all complexity is in constraints’ interaction through ranking and conjunction: Lango ATR harmony

Documents

January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon1 Empirical Relevance Local conjunction has seen many empirical applications; here, vowel harmony