LSA 2018 | January 6, 2018 Feature change is not like deletion: Saltation in Harmonic Grammar Jennifer L. Smith UNC Chapel Hill www.unc.edu/~jlsmith
Overview of the talk • What happens when we model saltation (phonological derived-environment effects) in Harmonic Grammar (HG)? • We find that there are two distinct types of saltation: - one that cannot be modeled in HG - one that can • This result identifies a domain where HG and OT make distinct empirical predictions • This also has implications for theories of features and featural faithfulness
1. The problem: Saltation, cumulative constraint interaction, and HG
(1) Saltation process—Schematic abbreviation A –* B – C (a) Phonological process has the form /A/→[C] (b) ‘Skips over’ potential outcome B: *(/A/→[B]) (c) Even though: • /A/ is more similar to [B] than it is to [C] • /B/ surfaces faithfully, so [B] is not generally illegal • Term saltation < Minkova (1993), Lass (1997) (diachronic); Hayes & White (2015) (synchronic) • Also known as phonological non-derived environment blocking or phonological derived- environment effects (e.g., Kiparsky 1993; Łubowicz 2002)
(2) Classical OT (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004) cannot model saltation (Łubowicz 2002) • Given A –* B – C : (a) A constraint ranking that maps /A/→[C] will map /B/→* [C] also (b) A constraint ranking that maps /B/→[B] will map /A/→* [B] also (assuming *A) (3) OT analyses of saltation typically involve cumulative constraint interaction (a) Local constraint conjunction (LCC) (Łubowicz 2002; Ito & Mester 2003) (b) Comparative Markedness (McCarthy 2003) also essentially encodes faithfulness + markedness cumulative interaction
(4) What happens when we look at saltation in Harmonic Grammar (HG) (Legendre, Miyata, & Smolensky 1990; Pater 2009, 2016) ? (a) Cumulative constraint interaction is intrinsic to HG • HG constraints are weighted , rather than ranked • The weighted violations for each candidate are summed to determine the candidate’s harmony score (H) (b) But, Hayes & White (2015) have argued that saltation should not be something that the phonological grammar can easily model • H&W argue that saltation processes are unnatural, so there must be a learning bias against saltation patterns • H&W specifically propose that devices like LCC (of markedness & faithfulness) that easily model saltation should not be included in an OT grammar
(c) Does this mean that HG makes pathological predictions about saltation? • No! The type of saltation most commonly seen in the literature cannot arise from cumulative constraint interaction (gang effects) in HG. (5) I further identify a potential distinction between two types of saltation (a) Feature-scale saltation: A –* B – C , where A, B, C are all segments (b) Deletion saltation: A –* B – Ø , where A, B are segments and Ø is null
(6) Overview of results: (a) HG cannot model feature-scale saltation, but can model deletion saltation (b) By contrast, the two types are equivalent in OT: both are possible with LCC, impossible without LCC (c) If we find differences in learnability between the two types, this would be empirical support for HG over OT
2. Cumulative constraint interaction in HG: ATOs and gang effects
(7) Because HG uses weighted constraints, multiple lower-weighted constraints can ‘gang up’ to prevail against a higher-weighted constraint (not possible in OT) • However, this only happens under particular circumstances
(8) HG gang effects only arise under asymmetric trade-offs (ATOs) (Pater 2009, 2016) C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 / input / H w =5 w =4 w =3 w =2 → (i) winner –1 -4 (ii) competitor –1 –1 -5 • Informally, an ATO occurs when: (see Pater 2009, 2016 for more rigorous description) (a) Some competitor does better than the winner on a higher-weighted constraint • Here, the competitor (ii) does better on C 2 than the winner (i) (b) But, the competitor has a greater number of unshared violations of lower- weighted constraints • Here, the competitor has violations of C 3 and C 4 that the winner does not • 1 violation of C 2 vs. 2 violations of C 3 , C 4 — asymmetric (not 1:1) • A violation of only C 3 or only C 4 is not enough to overcome a violation of C 2 —but C 3 and C 4 together can ‘gang up’ on C 2
(9) Implications of ATOs (example): There is no ‘coda threshold’ in HG (Pater 2009, 2016) • It can never be the case that n codas are allowed but > n codas are deleted, because the trade-off between M AX and N O C ODA is symmetric C 1 N O C ODA M AX C 4 /CVC...CVC/ H w =5 w =i w =k w =2 ? (i) CV_...CV_ –1× n –n×i ? (ii) CVC...CVC –1× n –n×k • Whether (i) or (ii) wins simply depends on whether i or k is a higher weight • This is independent of n , the number of potential codas: no gang effect
(10) Crucially, shared violations can never contribute to gang effects (Pater 2009, 2016) • See (17) below—this is a key difference between HG gang effects and LCC in OT C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 / input / H w =5 w =4 w =3 w =2 (i) output1 –1 –1 | shared -6 → (ii) output2 –1 –1 | shared -5 (a) No ATO here—the ‘trade-off’ is symmetric between 1 violation of C 2 and1 of C 3 (b) Without an ATO, there is no assignment of weights that will allow C 3 and C 4 to gang up on C 2 so as to make candidate (i) win (given w (C 2 ) > w (C 3 ), w (C 2 ) > w (C 4 ))
3. Feature-scale saltation and cumulative constraint interaction
(11) Feature-scale saltation | A –* B – C ɡ –* k – x | Coda /ɡ/→[x] (skipping *[k]), in Colloquial Northern German • Data from Ito & Mester (2003: 274, 291) /ɡ/ /tso: ɡ / [tso: x ], *[tso: k ] cf. [tso: ɡ -ən] ‘pulled’, 1sg./1pl. /tʀu: ɡ / [tʀu: x ], *[tʀu: k ] [tʀu: ɡ -ən] ‘carried’, 1sg./1pl. /fly: ɡ / [flu: x ], *[flu: k ] [fly: ɡ -ə] ‘flight’, sg./pl. vs. /k/ /dɪ k / [dɪ k ], *[dɪ x ] [dɪ k -ə] ‘fat’, pred./attrib.pl. • Points on scale /A/, (*B), [C] are all segments on continuum defined by features A = / ɡ / B = (* k ) C = [ x ] • Feature scale defined by [+voice] [–voice] [–voice] [±voice], [±continuant] [–cont] [–cont] [+cont] • Other cases include: Polish (Rubach 1984) Sestu Campidanian Sardinian (Bolognesi 1998)
3.1 Feature-scale saltation with local constraint conjunction (LCC) in OT (12) LCC analysis of saltation in OT follows Łubowicz (2002), Ito & Mester (2003) • Works in the same way for both feature-scale and deletion saltation • Tableaus all show unviolated *A at top—this is what drives /A/ to change
(13) LCC analysis for feature-scale saltation: A –* B – C | /A/→[C] (skipping *B) • ɡ –* k – x | Coda /ɡ/→[x] (skipping *[k]), in Colloquial Northern German *A *B & I D (*A→B) I D (*B→C) *B I D (*A→B) /tso:ɡ/ *V OI O B C ODA *D ORS S T & I D [±voi] I DENT [±cont] *D ORS S TOP I DENT [±voi] → (i) tso:x * * (ii) tso:k * W L * W * (a) Candidate (i) is the intended (saltation) winner (b) The crucial violation is I DENT (*B→C) because this favors the competitor, (ii) • Here, I DENT [±cont] is violated by the winner (i) but not the competitor (ii) (c) We know I DENT (*B→C) » *B because underlying /B/ doesn’t shift to [C] • Here: I DENT [±cont] » *D ORS S TOP , because /k/ does not become [x] (d) LCC provides *B & I DENT (*A→B) : Surface [B] is banned only if unfaithful • Here: [k] loses to [x] (satisfying *D ORS S TOP ) only if I DENT [±voi] violated (14) The OT tableau in (13) without the conjoined constraint (or something analogous) cannot model saltation
3.2 Feature-scale saltation in HG: No ATO, no gang effect
(15) No ATO in feature-scale saltation: A –* B – C | /A/→[C] (skipping *B) • ɡ –* k – x | Coda /ɡ/→[x] (skipping *[k]), in Colloquial Northern German *A I D (*B→C) *B I D (*A→B) *V OI O B C ODA I DENT [±cont] *D ORS S TOP I DENT [±voi] /tso:ɡ/ w (*A)> w (I D (*A→B)) w (I D (*B→C))> w (*B) w (I D (*B→C))> w (*B) w (*A)> w (I D (*A→B)) ?→ (i) tso:x –1 –1 | shared (ii) tso:k –1 –1 | shared (a) Candidate (i) is the intended (saltation) winner (b) The crucial violation (highest weighted) for (i) is I DENT (*B→C) • Here, the saltation candidate (i) violates I DENT [±cont], but (ii) does not (c) We know w (I DENT (*B→C)) > w (*B) because underlying /B/ doesn’t shift to [C] • Here, w (I DENT [±cont]) > w (*D ORS S TOP ), because /k/ does not become [x]
(15) No ATO in feature-scale saltation: A –* B – C | /A/→[C] (skipping *B) • ɡ –* k – x | Coda /ɡ/→[x] (skipping *[k]), in Colloquial Northern German *A I D (*B→C) *B I D (*A→B) *V OI O B C ODA I DENT [±cont] *D ORS S TOP I DENT [±voi] /tso:ɡ/ w (*A)> w (I D (*A→B)) w (I D (*B→C))> w (*B) w (I D (*B→C))> w (*B) w (*A)> w (I D (*A→B)) ?→ (i) tso:x –1 –1 | shared (ii) tso:k –1 –1 | shared (d) There is no ATO between candidates (i) and (ii) • I DENT (*A→B) violation is shared —cannot be part of a gang effect! - Here: I DENT [±voi] is violated by both [x] and [k] • Unshared violations: I DENT (*B→C) for (i) vs. *B for (ii) - Here: I DENT [±cont] for (saltation) [x] vs. *D ORS S TOP for (‘skipped’) [k] - This is a 1:1 relation, not asymmetric • Under no weighting conditions can (i) win by a gang effect (e) There are no compatible weighting conditions under which (i) can win
Recommend
More recommend
