Existential Faithfullness : A Study of Reduplicative TETU, Feature Movement and Dissimulation 9781136721137, 9780415941532

Citation preview

OUTSTANDING DISSERTATIONS IN LINGUISTICS

Edited by

Laurence Horn Yale University

A ROUTLEDGE SERIES

OUTSTANDING DISSERTATIONS IN LINGUISTICS LAURENCE HORN, General Editor PHONOLOGICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN

THE SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC

WORDS

PHONOLOGY Of EJECTIVES

Laura Benua

Paul D. Fallon

CONSONANT STRENGTH

GRAMMATICAL FEATURES AND THE

Pllonological Patterns and PI,onetic Manifestations Lisa M. Lavoie

ACQUISITION OF REFERENCE

PATIERNS Of REDUPLICATION IN

AUDITORY REPRESENTATIONS IN

A Comparative Study Sergio Baauw

of Dutcll and Spanish

LUSHOOTSEED

PHONOLOGY

Suzanne Urbanczyk

Edward S. Flemming

THE SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTION

THE TYPOLOGY Of PARTS OF

PARAMETER

SPEECH SYSTEMS

Osamuyimen Stewart Thompson

TI,e Markedness ofAdjectives David Beck

LONG-DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES

Mihoko Zushi

THE EFFECTS OF PROSODY ON

THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF THE

Taehong Cho

ALGONQUIAN CONJUNCT VERB

A Minimalist Approacll Julie Brittain TURN-TAKING IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE

Projectability in Grammar, Intonation and Semantics Hiroko Furo MORPHOLOGICALLY GOVERNED ACCENT

ARTICULATION IN ENGLISH

PARALLELISM AND PROSODY IN THE PROCESSING OF ELLIPIS SENTENCES

Katy Carlson PRODUCTION, PERCEPTION, AND EMERGENT PHONOTACTIC PATIERNS

A Case of Contrastive Palatalization Alexei Kochetov

IN OPTIMALITY THEORY

RADDOPPIAMENTO SINTATTICO IN ITALIAN

John Alderete

A Synchronic and Diachronic Cross-Dialectical Study Doris Borrelli

MINIMAL INDIRECT REFERENCE

A 17leory of tile Syntax-Pllonology Interface Amanda Seidl DISTINCTIVENESS, COERCION AND SONORITY

A Unified T1Ieory Bruce Moren

of Weight

PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL ASPECTS

PRESUPPOSITION AND DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS OF THE JAPANESE PARTICLE

Mo

Sachiko Shudo THE SYNTAX Of POSSESSION IN JAPANESE

Takae Tsujioka

OF GEMINATE TIMING

COMPENSATORY LENGTHENING

William H. Ham

Pllonetics, Pllonology, Diachrony Darya Kavitskaya

VOWEL REDUCTION IN OPTIMALITY THEORY

THE EFFECTS OF DURATION AND

Katherine Crosswhite

SONORITY ON CONTOUR TONE

AN EFFORT BASED ApPROACH TO CONSONANT LENITION

Robert Kirchner

DISTRIBUTION

A Typological Survey and Fonnal Analysis Jie Zhang

EXISTENTIAL FAITHFULNESS A Study of Reduplicative TETU, Feature Movement, and Dissimilation

Caro Struijke

igl~ Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group

New York London

Published in 2002 by Roudedge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Published in Great Britain by Roudedge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, axon OX14 4RN

RoHtledge is an imprint of the TCfJlor & Francis Group, an informa bHSiness Copyright © 2002 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-0-415-94153-2 (hbk) Publisher's Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this book but points out that some imperfections from the original may be apparent.

Table of Contents

Preface

ix

Acknowledgements

xi

Abstract 1 Introduction

xiii 3

1.1 Optimality Theory and classic Correspondence Theory

10

1.2 Existential Faithfulness 1.2.1 Existential faithfulness constraints defined 1.2.2 Segmental preservation and reduplication 1.2.3 Preservation offeature specifications 1.2.3.1 Preservation ofF specifications and reduplication 1.2.3.2 Preservation ofF specifications and F movement 1.2.3.3 Preservation of F specifications and dissimilation 1.2.4 Preservation of adjacency and ordering relations

15 16 17 19 21 22 23 25

1.3 Fission and surface correspondence

28

1.4 Conclusion

31

Appendix I: Overview of existential faithfulness constraints

32

2 Reduplicative TETU

37

2.1 Faithfulness relations in reduplication 2.1.1 Broad input-output correspondence and Output TETU 2.1.2 Root faithfulness and Reduplicant TETU 2.1.3 Base-reduplicant correspondence 2.1.4 Summary

39 40 42 43 46

Table of Contents

vi

2.2 Reduplicant TETU: Kwakwala case study 2.2.1 Unreduplicated words and the moraic status of codas 2.2.2 The Emergence of WXP in reduplication 2.2.3 Typological predictions: TETU in reduplicative and lexical affixes

46 47 50 54

2.3 Output TETU: Kwakwala case study 2.3.1 Unreduplicated words and stress clash 2.3.2 The emergence of *Clash in reduplicated words 2.3.2.1 Type A words 2.3.2.2 Type Band C words

55 56 59 59 63

2.4 Realization of redupl. morphs and phonological reduplication 2.4.1 Non-realization of IRED! 2.4.2 Forces driving realization of IRED! 2.4.3 Reduplication in the absence of IRED!

65 65 67 70

2.5 Reduplicant size as a predictor of TETU alternations

72

2.6 Markedness constraints in Output and Reduplicant TETU 2.6.1 The effect of constraint domain size 2.6.2 Determining the alternation site in Output TETU

73 74 75

2.7 Division of input characteristics between base and reduplicant

77

2.8 Identifying base and reduplicant

79

2.9 The emergence of the faithful

81

2.10 Comparison with other proposals 2.10.1 Comparison with classic Correspondence Theory 2.10.1.1 The Emergence of the Unmarked 2.10.1.2 The Emergence of the Marked 2.10.1.3 Normal application 2.10.2 Comparison with other work assuming broad IO

83 83 85 85 87 90

2.11 Conclusion

92

3 Feature movement and dissimilation 3.1 Feature movement 3.1.1 Feature movement as fission and coalescence 3.1.1.1 Distributing fission 3.1.1.2 Coalescence 3.1.2 Combining fission and coalescence into F movement

95 97 99 100 100 103

Table o/Contents

vii

3.2 Dissimilation as a result of fission and coalescence

107

3.3 Case study: Sanskrit 3.3.1 Ban on laryngeally marked segments 3.3.2 [+murmur] movement 3.3.2.1 The similarity effect in Sanskrit movement 3.3.2.2 Multiple feature movement? 3.3.2.3 Conclusion Sanskrit feature movement 3.3.3 Bartholomae's Law 3.3.4 Grassmann's Law 3.3.5 Conclusion Sanskrit case study

113 114

117 119 121 124 124 127 134

3.4 Case study: Cuzco Quechua 3.4.1 Feature value preservation 3.4.2 Floating features and the OCP 3.4.3 Further cooccurrence restrictions

134 135 140 144

3.5 Conclusion

145

Appendix II: The proximity effect

147

4 3-IDENT[±F] and MAx[F] compared

149

4.1 Correspondence Theory and the status of features

150

4.2 Similarities between 3- IDENT[±F] and MAX[F]

155

4.3 Phenomena 4.3.1 Distributing diphthongization 4.3.2 Coalescence (and feature stability) 4.3.3 Feature movement 4.3.4 Dissimilation

156 156 162 167 171

4.4 Conclusion

174

5 Conclusion

177

References

181

Index

193

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

This book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Maryland at College Park in August 2000. I have corrected most of the obvious errors and added an index. The most notable change is the expanded discussion on dissimilation. With the exception of a few minor details, all claims and analyses remain unaltered.

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

Most thanks in these acknowledgments go to my advisor Laura Benua. She has taught me so much, and I hope her advice and insights find a reflection in this work. Her enthusiasm and support have helped me tremendously. I feel proud to be her student. Many key points in this dissertation were developed during my stay at UMass, where John McCarthy generously shared his wealth of knowledge. I fondly remember many enlightening discussions, fun chats, and reassuring encouragements. I could simply not have wished for a more wonderful committee. Luigi Burzio taught me that there are endless theoretical possibilities. At the same time, Linda Lombardi held my feet firm on the ground and taught me to be precise in the details. Mary Ellen Scullen was an endless source of great advice and editorial tips, and Paul Smolensky showed the power of theoretical subtleties and was a source of constant support. I want to thank my classmates, Juan Carlos Castillo, John Drury, Klea Grohmann, Akemi Matsuya, Julien Musolino, and Acrisio Pires for their friendship and for sharing the ups and downs of the graduate experience. Special thanks go to Haruka Fukazawa, Pat Hyronymous, Viola Miglio, Frida Morelli and Bruce Moren for adopting me in their 'funology' group and for being there all the way. Lisa Davidson, Matt Goldrick, Mits Ota, and Colin Wilson deserve thanks for making interdepartmental seminars so much fun to attend. I am grateful to the phonologists and phoneticians at UMass for providing an intellectually stimulating and supportive environment during my dissertation year: in particular Paul de Lacy, John Kingston, Ania Lubowicz, Elliott Moreton, Steve Parker, Joe Pater, Jen Smith, and Lisa Selkirk. I was fortunate to land ajob at the University of Toronto, where I revised parts of this dissertation. I want to thank everyone at the linguistics department, in particular those I got to talk phonology with: Peter Avery, Elan Dresher, Greg Guy, Daniel Hall, Wenckje Jongstra, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, Sara MacKenzie, Jack Panster, Milan Rezac, Keren Rice, Nicole Rosen, and Tom Wilson. Finally, I want to thank my friends and family for being existentially faithful.

This page intentionally left blank

EXISTENTIAL FAITHFULNESS

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Generative phonology assumes a mapping from underlying to surface forms (e.g. Chomsky 1966; Chomsky and Halle 1968; Anderson 1974). This view of the grammar allows us to determine a single form, the underlying or lexical representation, from which it is possible to derive all shapes it might exhibit on the surface. In Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) the nature of the underlying-surface mapping is determined by the interaction of faithfulness constraints, which demand that the two representations match, and well-formedness constraints, which may prefer a change in the surface form. Faithfulness constraints are usually thought to evaluate the degree of identity between the input and the output, so that any deviation between these strings violates such a constraint (Prince and Smolensky 1993; Correspondence Theory McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1999). Although I assume the basic premises of Correspondence Theory, I argue instead that faithfulness constraints demand preservation of input material in the output, not identity of the two representations. That is, faithfulness constraints merely demand that an input element have some output correspondent. The constraints are thus existentially quantified. In a simple one-to-one input-output mapping, identity and preservation are synonymous. For instance, given an input segment and a single identical output correspondent, both identity and preservation are achieved. However, in 'fission,' where an input segment is related to two or more output segments, preservation does not imply identity. If only one output correspondent shares a given feature specification with the input segment, preservation of that input feature specification is achieved because it is preserved on some correspondent in the output. However, segmental identity is not attained because not all output correspondents are like the input segment. This idea can be exemplified by diphthongization. In diphthongization, an underlying segment (vowel or consonant) undergoes fission and surfaces as a heterogeneous sequence (cf. Hayes 1990). In one type of diphthongization, the underlying segment divides its features between the two surface segments. I refer to this as 'distributing diphthongization.' Many examples come from the phonology of loan words. In English loan words from French, for instance, [ii] is realized as the diphthong [iu] (Shane 1984 (Middle English); Hawkins 1984 (Modem English)), where the front and round qualities of the input vowel are

Existential Faithfulness

4

maintained on different segments. Also, when a French word containing a nasalized vowel is the input to the present-day German and English grammars, a sequence of an oral vowel and nasal arises (Ito and Mester 2000; Hawkins 1984, respectively), preserving the vowel quality and nasality of the input segment on different output segments. Examples of distributing diphthongization outside the domain of lexical borrowing include Spanish diphthongization of stressed vowels (Harris 1969; Halle, Harris and Vergnaud 1991 - quoted in Cole 1995) Icelandic pre-aspiration (Tniinsson 1978, amongst others; discussed in chapter 4).

am

(1. )

English distributing diphthongization (loans from French) 'deja v[ti]' [deI3;) viu] German diphthongization (loans from French) ann[o]ce ann[:>g]ce 'advertisement' bal[o]ce bal[oIJ]ce 'balance' cous[e] COUS[Eg] '(male) cousin' English distributing diphthongization (loans from French) [bobo] [bonbon] 'candy' [deHit] [deltont] 'relaxation' Spanish distributing diphthongization c[:>]nt-a-ba c[ue]nt-a 'he counted 1counts' n[e]g-a-ba n[ie]g-a 'he denied 1denies' p[e]ns-amos p[ie]ns-o 'we II think' s[:>]1t-amos s[ue]1t-o 'well release' Icelandic pre-aspiration /haphl hahp 'luck' Ivphi/ vhpi 'upstairs' Ivathnal vahtna 'water'

In Correspondence Theory, diphthongization is analyzed as multiple correspondence. Thus, the Spanish input segment 1:>1 has two output correspondents in stressed syllables: [u] and [e]. This is depicted below. Throughout this book, lines and indices indicate correspondence relations. (2.)

Spanish diphthongization unstressed syllables input:: :>1

output;:

:>1

stressed syllables :>1

:>1

:>1

Introduction

5

In Spanish stressed syllables of this type, corresponding segments are not identical. Hence, the universally quantified faithfulness constraints of classic Correspondence Theory are violated. However, the existentially quantified faithfulness constraints proposed in this work are satisfied because each feature specification associated with the input vowel is preserved on at least one of its output correspondents. The back and round features are preserved on the first vowel, the height feature on the second vowel. Thus, the existential view of faithfulness allows a formalization of the idea that distributing diphthongization ensures faithfulness. I One of the main claims of this book is that segmental fission allows improved markedness of a phonological structure, while at the same time securing preservation of underlying material. In the Spanish example, diphthongization allows the stressed nucleus to be heavy, probably in satisfaction of the markedness constraint STRESstoWEIGHT. In the French English borrowing mapping /til - [iu), a marked front rounded vowel is avoided without loss of the underlying front and round features. Thus, distributing diphthongization allows simultaneous satisfaction of a markedness constraint ("if stressed, then heavy," "don't have [u]") and faithfulness constraints ("preserve [+round)," etc.). This book argues that a range of phenomena exhibit simultaneous satisfaction of potentially conflicting markedness and faithfulness constraints. Apart from distributing diphthongization, these include The emergence of the unmarked in reduplication, feature movement, and dissimilation. I claim that all these phenomena involve segmental fission, in which a single input segment corresponds to two output correspondents. If faithfulness constraints are existentially quantified, only one output correspondent needs to preserve a given feature specification, leaving the other free to respond to markedness requirements. I will now briefly discuss the three patterns in turn. It is a well-known fact that reduplicated words often include less marked structure than unreduplicated words (McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1994a; Shaw 1987; Steriade 1988). For example, Sanskrit permits complex onset clusters and codas in unreduplicated words, but only CV syllables in reduplicants (Steriade 1988). This pattern is dubbed 'The Emergence of The Unmarked' in McCarthy and Prince 1994a, and is commonly abbreviated as 'TETU.' In chapter 2, I argue that emergent unmarkedness in reduplicated words can be attributed to existential faithfulness constraints given the claim that I The problem that classic Correspondence Theory faces in distributing diphthongization was previously noted in Keer's (1999) and Moren's (1999) analyses of Icelandic preaspiration. The latter adopts existentially defined faithfulness from Struijke (1998). The former assumes that aspiration is a 'semi-independent segment.'

6

Existential Faithfulness

reduplication involves segmental fission. Reduplicative fission is depicted below with an example of Malay full reduplication. In full reduplication, each input segment has a correspondent in the base and a correspondent in the reduplicant. (3. )

Malay full reduplication (mata •eye' - mata-mata 'policeman') input: RED + m a t a

output:

~

mata

mata

Given existential faithfulness, only one member of the base-reduplicant pair must preserve input material to satisfy faithfulness constraints on the input-output relation. The other member can become unmarked without incurring an input-output faithfulness violation. For instance, in the Sanskrit mapping Isvap/- [~-svap] ('sleep (intensive),) each input segment is preserved in the output (namely the base), while syllable markedness is improved in the reduplicant. The Ttibatulabal mapping IJi'liwi/- [Th-Ji?iwi] ('it looks different') constitutes a second example of The Emergence of The Unmarked (Alderete et al. 1999). Here, the marked place and manner features of the initial input segment are preserved in the base correspondent, but lost in the reduplicant correspondent. Thus, the account of emergent unmarkedness in reduplication that is presented in this book formalizes the idea that markedness can be improved without compromising preservation of underlying material (cf. McCarthy and Prince 1994a). It was previously assumed that only reduplicants can alternate to achieve unmarked structure in reduplication. However, I show that bases can sometimes be affected by The Emergence of The Unmarked instead. If reduplication involves fission, and faithfulness is existentially defined, this pattern is expected. Fissioned output segments are of equal status because either can ensure preservation of input features and satisfy input-output faithfulness constraints. Existential constraints are indifferent as to which member of the base-reduplicant pair is faithful and which changes to decrease markedness: either the reduplicant or the base can undergo a TETU alternation. Usually, one output correspondent in a reduplicative word is completely like the input segment while the other becomes unmarked. In the Ttibatulabal example mentioned above, the reduplicant consonant is unmarked with respect to place and manner features, while the corresponding base consonant remains unchanged. Such asymmetry is also found in some cases of diphthongization. In MaIaren Region Swedish (Hayes 1990), for instance, a full vowel [V] diphthongizes to [V~], where the second output correspondent acquires unmarked vowel features, and the first stays unchanged. In reduplication, it is usually the

7

Introduction

correspondent in the base that is like the input segment. However, reduplication sometimes involves division of input features between segments in the base and the reduplicant, comparable to fission in English ltil -[iu] diphthongization. For instance, in the Japanese mapping /P li2t30i - [hli2t304-bli2t304] the first correspondent of Ipll preserves the voicelessness of its input corespondent, while the second correspondent preserves the manner and place features. Whether input features are divided between output correspondents or whether one preserves all features and the other becomes maximally unmarked depends on language-specific constraint rankings. Put differently, the degree of similarity between an input segment and each of its output segments is an emergent property of the constraint ranking: neither correspondent is inherently closer to the input than the other. Throughout this book, I use the term 'distributing fission' to refer to any situation in which an input segment divides its feature specifications among two or more output correspondents (including distributing diphthongization and reduplication patterns similar to Japanese). In distributing fission, feature specifications associated with a single input segment surface in different positions in the output word. As a result, it sometimes seems as if a feature has moved from one segment to another. In Esimbi, for example, height features seem to move from the root vowel to the prefix vowel (Stalcup 1980a,b, Hyman 1988, Walker 1997). (4.)

Esimbi feature movement lu-sel osi lu-re/ ::lri li-gbel egbi Ii-sol esu /i-b~1 ebi

'laugh' 'daub' 'bushfowl' 'hoe' 'cane rat'

I argue in chapter 3 that feature movement is an epiphenomenon. The Esimbi height feature [-hi] is not actually reassociated. Instead, the root vowel undergoes fission and its different feature specifications are preserved on two different output correspondents. One correspondent preserves the underlying color features, while the other maintains the height feature. As a result, the relevant existential faithfulness constraints are satisfied. This is depicted below.

8 (5.)

Existential Faithfulness Esimbi feature movement involves segmental fission (only input features are shown) [-hi, -back, - rd]

input:

output:

:>1

0 1

[-hi]

il [-back, - rd]

So far, feature movemenf resembles distributing diphthongization. However, the two phenomena differ in an important way. In feature movement, one output correspondent of a fissioned input segment coalesces with another segment in the string. The coalesced segment then preserves features from its two input correspondents, as shown below for the Esimbi example. (6. )

Feature movement is a combination offission and coalescence input:

output:

[+back, +hi, +rd] :>1

01,3

[+back, -hi, +rd]

:>1

S2

[-back, -hi, -rd] :>1

i3 [-back, -rd]

Feature movement takes place to improve markedness of a segment. In Esimbi, non-high vowels such as leI are marked in non-initial syllables. Feature movement thus improves markedness while at the same time ensuring preservation of the underlying feature specification that is prevented from surfacing in a particular environment. The proposed analysis shows that one does not need to ascribe an autosegmental status to features in order to explain feature movement. Instead, features can be seen as properties of segments. In chapter 4, I compare the

2 Throughout this book, I use the term 'feature movement' as a descriptive term to refer to any mapping in which a feature specification is associated with one segment in the input, but seemingly associated with another segment in the output. 'Feature displacement' and 'feature transfer' are other terms found in the literature to refer to this phenomenon.

9

Introduction

features-as-attributes view with the features-as-entities view. 3 I refer to the fIrst as 'Featural Attribute Theory,' and the second as 'Featural Independence Theory.' Dissimilation, like distributing diphthongization, reduplicative TETU, and feature movement, permits simultaneous preservation of underlying material and improvement of markedness. Again, in this book this is accomplished through segmental fIssion, and the existential defInition of faithfulness constraints plays a crucial role. The proposal is developed in chapter 3 and builds on Struijke (2000b,c) and Struijke & de Lacy (2000). It formalizes the idea that one output segment can ensure preservation of identical feature specifIcations belonging to two input segments. The other output segment alternates to meet markedness requirements. As in feature movement, dissimilation involves both fIssion and coalescence. This is depicted below: (7. )

Labial dissimilation [lab, +nasl

input:

output:

mt

m1.2

[lab, +nasl

[lab, -cont, -vc1

P2

t3 [cor, -cont, -vcl

In this example, the fIrst output consonant ensures preservation (i.e. existential faithfulness) of the labial feature specifIcations associated with both its input correspondents. The second output consonant can become unmarked without incurring a faithfulness violation. All phenomena analyzed in this book are accounted for by assuming that featural faithfulness is evaluated over segmental correspondence by IOENT[F] constraints (McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1999), rather than by MAX[F] constraints (Causley 1997a,b; Lamontagne and Rice 1995; Lombardi 1995, 1998; Parker 1997; Walker 1997). This assumption crucially relies on the idea that featural faithfulness constraints are existentially quantified. In chapter 4, I show that existential IOENT[F] and MAX[F] constraints share important properties, which explains their comparable success in accounting for the aforementioned phenomena. Because this book aims to contribute to the Correspondence Theory of faithfulness, an overview of 'classic' Correspondence Theory (as proposed in 3 The terms 'attributes' and 'entities' as applied to features are due to McCarthy (1996).

10

Existential Faithfulness

McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1999) is given in section 1.1, set in a basic outline of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993). Section 1.2 defines existential faithfulness and the constraints that enforce it. In addition, it gives an outline of the book. This chapter is concluded by an appendix that provides an overview of the existential faithfulness constraints and their formal definitions.

1.1 OT and classic Correspondence Theory The OT grammar consists of three components: GEN, CON, ard EVAL (Prince and Smolensky 1993). GEN generates output candidates from a given input. These candidates are evaluated by EVAL to determine which candidate best satisfies the language particular hierarchy of constraints (CON). This most harmonic, or optimal form is the actual output. (8.)

OTgrammar cando 1

linput!

G

cand.2

C

E

cando 3

0

N

cand.4

N

EVAL

~[OPtimal cand.]

cando 5 For a given input, the function GEN produces a set of candidates. Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995) holds that each candidate consists of the input, a possible output, and correspondence relations between the segments in these structures. Correspondence relations permit EVAL to make comparisons between different parts of a candidate - in the most obvious case, between the input and the output. Correspondence is defined as below. I adopt the definition in this book.

(9.)

Correspondence (McCarthy and Prince 1995. 1999) Given two related strings SI and S2' correspondence is a relation 9t from the elements of SI to those of S2' Elements 1

a2 :>1

INTEGRITY penalizes fission (as in classic Correspondence Theory). The constraint is violated in diphthongization, feature movement, dissimilation, arxl

Introduction

35

phonological reduplication, and any other phenomena involving fission. I argue that GEN always establishes mUltiple correspondence in the presence of a reduplicative morpheme, and therefore INTEGRITY 10 is not relevant in morphological reduplication. Since this constraint specifically penalizes fission, quantification is not an issue (recall that quantification is only an issue if fission is actually established). INTEGRITY10:

For seg-x E input and seg-y, seg-z E output, if seg-x9tseg-y and seg-x9tseg-z, then seg-y =seg-z No fission. The integrity of an input segment is preserved in the output.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2

Reduplicative TETU

The core idea developed in this book is that phonological faithfulness requires preservation of underlying elements in surface forms. To formally implement this idea, I propose that input-output (10) faithfulness constraints are existentially quantified, such that they require each underlying element to have some faithful correspondent in the surface form. This is a departure from classic Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995), in which faithfulness constraints are universally quantified and require all output elements to be faithful to their input correspondent. The effects of existentially quantified faithfulness are visible when an input segment has more than one correspondent in the surface form. I argue in this chapter that such multiple correspondence, or 'fission,' occurs in reduplication. In a reduplicated word, an underlying segment typically undergo fission and have two correspondents in the output: one in the base and one in the reduplicant. I argue that segments in both members of the base-reduplicant pair are subject to 10 faithfulness constraints. Because these constraints are existentially quantified, however, only one of these strings needs to be like the input, even when 10 faithfulness constraints are undominated. I show that the ranking of other constraints in a grammar determines whether the other member stays unchanged, or alternates to (better) satisfy some lower-ranked markedness constraint. In the latter case, the result is 'The Emergence of The Unmarked,' henceforward abbreviated as TETU (McCarthy and Prince 1994a - for precursors see McCarthy and Prince 1986; Shaw 1987; Steriade 1988). In reduplicative TETU, a markedness constraint is inactive in unreduplicated words due to dominant 10 faithfulness, but emerges in reduplication such that it forces an alternation in one member of the base-reduplicant pair. Thus, even though unreduplicated words are marked, reduplicated forms are less marked. The main focus of this chapter is on The Emergence of The Unmarked, and the factors determining which output string preserves input information, and which undergoes a change. An important result of this chapter is that either the base or the reduplicant can alternate in TETU. This differs from the proposal made by McCarthy and Prince (1994a), who argue that it is always the reduplicant that changes. This result was reported earlier in Struijke 1998. The more general idea pursued in this chapter pertains to the nature of reduplication. Underlying this study of reduplicative TETU is the idea that the

38

Existential Faithfulness

base and reduplicant are generated in parallel. This is of course a consequence of the architecture of standard Optimality Theory, but I take the idea to its extreme by claiming that the base is in no sense prior to the reduplicant (see also Inkelas and Zoll 2(00). As mentioned earlier, I claim that both strings are related to the input and are equally subject to 10 faithfulness constraints. Thus, the reduplicant is not 'copied' from the base, but is directly mapped from the input. As a result, the reduplicant can contain input information that is not preserved in the base. Even though I assume that reduplication is established through fission along the input-output dimension, the base-reduplicant correspondence relation (McCarthy and Prince 1995) (or a more general surface faithfulness relation) is anything but superfluous. It is crucial in the theory presented in this chapter in that it (typically) accounts for any identity between base and reduplicant. Like 10 faithfulness, BR faithfulness appears to assign equal status to these strings. Although the base and reduplicant are equivalent with respect to both this type of correspondence and 10 correspondence, the strings tend to differ morphologically. Reduplicants are often affixes while bases are usually roots. Therefore only bases tend to be subject to Positional Faithfulness requirements specific to root morphemes (root faithfulness; Beckman 1997). The faithfulness dimensions relevant in reduplication are laid out in section 2.1. Section 2.2 introduces 'Reduplicant TETU.' In this type of TETU, the base is faithful and preserves marked input material, while the reduplicant changes to become unmarked. It is familiar from the literature following McCarthy and Prince (1994a), but is accounted for in a different manner in oo:Ier to allow for an explanation of 'Output TETU,' which is introduced in section 2.3. In Output TETU the emerging markedness constraine determines in which part of the output word a TETU alternation takes place. I show that either the base or the reduplicant can be affected. Both types of reduplicative TETU are illustrated with a case study of Kwakwala reduplication. At the ends of both section 2.2 and section 2.3, I draw parallels between TETU in reduplicated words and unreduplicated words, and argue that reduplicative affixes are more likely to be involved in TETU alternations than lexically specified affixes. In the remaining sections of this chapter, I point to some important predictions of the proposed theory of faithfulness with respect to reduplication, many of which are illustrated by Kwakwala reduplication. In section 2.4, I show that an existential faithfulness constraint and a markedness constraint can conspire to either prevent phonological realization of a reduplicative morpheme or, conversely, force reduplication in the absence of such a morpheme (i.e. 'phonological reduplication'). Section 2.6 focuses on the different roles played by the emerging markedness constraints in Reduplicant and Output TETU. I I An 'emerging markedness constraint' is a constraint that is (typically) inactive in unreduplicated words of a given language, but active in reduplicated words.

39

Reduplicative TETU

explain why the size of the domain evaluated by the markedness constraint may detennine which type of TETU occurs (i.e. which member of the base-reduplicant pair is able to change). Section 2.7 shows that input segments and input feature specifications can be distributed between the base and the reduplicant such that these strings are equally unlike the input. Section 2.8 shows that reduplicative infixation may be less frequent than previously assumed. In section 2.10, the proposed view of reduplication is compared with other theories, in particular classic Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995). Section 2.11 concludes this chapter.

2.1 Faithfulness relations in reduplication The diagram in (1) displays the correspondence relations to which reduplicated words are subject. They are input-output faithfulness and base-reduplicant faithfulness. I have included the positional faithfulness relation root faithfulness, because it usually distinguishes bases and reduplicants, and because it plays a crucial role in Reduplicant TETU. Following a brief description of the terms 'base' and 'reduplicant', each of these three correspondence relations is discussed in tum. (1.)

Correspondence relations relevant in reduplication input:

IRED + Root/ Input-Output Faith Reduplicative

output:

Reduplicant

IRED

Base-Reduplicant Faith Since root faithfulness typically selects the base (or part of the base), but not the reduplicant in a reduplicated word, it is useful to differentiate these strings. Following most research on reduplication, I assume that the reduplicant is the phonological realization of a segmentally empty morpheme: IREDI (see e.g. McCarthy and Prince 1986; but see e.g. Inkelas and Zoll 2000 and Yip 1998b for a different view). Given 'consistency of exponence' (McCarthy and Prince 1993b) the output reduplicant is the exponent of IRED/. Thus, if the morphological identity of IREDI is an affix, the morphological status of the reduplicant is an affix also, even when segments in the reduplicant are in

40

Existential Faithfulness

correspondence with the input root. The base is the string that complements the reduplicant. It includes root material and any segmentally specified affixes.

2.1.1 Broad 10 correspondence2 and Output TETU Input-output correspondence relates elements of the input to elements in the output (McCarthy and Prince 1995). I argue that it is a general relation which is insensitive to the morphological make-up of words. In unreduplicated words, each input element usually has one output correspondent, as illustrated below (lines indicate correspondence). (2. )

10 correspondence in unreduplicated words Input:

It

a b i-sl

III II tab i

Output:

s

The idea that entire inputs are related to entire output words also applies to reduplicated words. Thus, I claim that 10 correspondence relates inputs to reduplicated words as a whole, including both the base and the reduplicant (cf. Classic Correspondence theory which assumes an input-base relation only ('Basic Model of Correspondence') or separate input-base and input-reduplicant relations ('Full Model of Correspondence'». Under the present proposal, input segments split and have a correspondent in the base and a correspondent in the reduplicant, as depicted below. This hypothetical form is an instance of full reduplication and therefore each input segment undergoes fission. (3. )

Reduplication involves fission Input:

Output:

It

tab i

a b i I

tab i

Segments in the two copies of a reduplicative word are of equal status with respect to the input-output relation and are therefore equally subject to 10 2 In Struijke 2000a, I referred to this relation as 'Word Faithfulness' (but see Borowsky 2000 for a different use of that tenn).

Reduplicative TETU

41

faithfulness constraints. This proposal is not new: similar ideas are developed in Struijke (1997) (where I dubbed the general 10 relation 'broad 10'), and were independently presented in Raimy and Idsardi (1997), Spaelti (1997), Fitzgerald (1998, 1999), and Yip (1998a, 2000) (cf. Cole 1997). All these proposals assume fission in reduplication (see also Inkelas and Zoll 2000). Section 2.10 discusses how these proposals differ from the ideas presented in this book. The main innovation of this book is that faithfulness constraints relating input elements to output elements are existentially defined.

(4.) •

Existential Broad Input-Output Faithfulness each segment of the input must be preserved somewhere in the output (3-MAXJO)

•

some output correspondent of a given input segment must preserve the feature specifications associated with that input segment (3- IOENT[F±]10)

In unreduplicated words, there is typically one chance to satisfy 10 faithfulness constraints. However, in reduplicated words, input segments potentially have two output correspondents, so in these words there are two chances to satisfy 10 faithfulness constraints. Thus, when 10 constraints are undorninated, unreduplicated words must be exactly like the input, but in reduplicated words only one member of the base-reduplicant pair needs to be like the input. As mentioned earlier, constraint interaction determines whether the other member remains unchanged or undergoes an alternation to better satisfy markedness requirements. When base-reduplicant (BR) faithfulness constraints are sufficiently high-ranking, segments in the base and reduplicant must be alike, and no change takes place. However, when constraints on the BR relation are low-ranking, one of the members in a base-reduplicant pair can change or delete material in response to some markedness constraint. This is 'The Emergence of The Unmarked' ('lETU' - McCarthy and Prince 1994a): undorninated input-output faithfulness constraints ensure that a lower-ranked markedness constraint is inactive in unreduplicated words, but the markedness constraint emerges and forces alternations in reduplicated words. Because the base and reduplicant are of equal status with respect to 10 correspondence, broad input-output constraints are indifferent as to whether it is the base or the reduplicant that preserves input material. As a result, lETU can affect either string. In section 2.3 this is demonstrated by a certain type of reduplication in Kwakwala (Wakashan; Boas 1947; Zec 1988; Rodier 1989). The broad interpretation of the input-output correspondence relation and the existential nature of constraints thereon account for the fact that a reduplicant

42

Existential Faithfulness

can ensure satisfaction of 10 faithfulness constraints,3 while a base can be affected by TETU. If one assumed fission (broad 10 correspondence) but universal faithfulness, TETU could not occur because output correspondents in both the base and the reduplicant should be like the input element. If one assumes that only bases are subject to input-output faithfulness ('narrow' 10 correspondence) (McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1999), undominated constraints on this relation force these strings to be faithful, and only reduplicants can be affected by TETU.

2.1.2 Root faithfulness and Reduplicant TETU Root faithfulness is a type of Positional Faithfulness (Beckman 1997). Roots are believed to participate in a special faithfulness relation in order to account for the fact that these morphemes are more likely to preserve underlying distinctions than affixes. Constraints on this relation require elements of the morphological input root to be faithfully realized in the output root. They are existentially quantified because they evaluate corresponding segments in the input and output, and hence demand preservation of input elements in the surface form (see chapter 1).

(5.)

Existential Root Faithfulness: • •

Every segment in the input root has some correspondent in the output root (3-MAXRT) Some root output correspondent of each root input segment preserves the feature specifications associated with that segment (3-IDENT[±F]RT)

Bases of reduplicated words typically consist of a root (or contain root material). Therefore bases (or root segments in bases) are subject to root faithfulness in addition to general input-output faithfulness. In partial reduplication, reduplicants are usually affixes, and hence they are only subject to

A mapping such as IRED+katJ - [k-atl, where the initial consonant is the phonological exponence of RED satisfies existential 10 faithfulness constraints. Yet, such a surface form is never attested, because the reduplicant is not recoverable, and the form would cause learnability problems. 3

Reduplicative TETU

43

10 constraints. 4•5 Since bases are subject to a superset of faithfulness constraints compared to reduplicants, they are more likely to be faithful to the input than reduplicants. As a result, most cases of TETU involve an alternation in the reduplicant. When root faithfulness constraints ensure that bases are faithful and consequently only reduplicants change to satisfy an emergent markedness constraint, we have 'Reduplicant TETU: Like Output TETU, Reduplicant TETU will be illustrated with Kwakwala reduplication (section 2.2).

2.1.3 Base-reduplicant correspondence 1 suggested in chapter 1 that base-reduplicant faithfulness may be subsumed under general surface faithfulness. However, awaiting further research, I use base-reduplicant faithfulness throughout this chapter. 1 have argued that output segments belonging to the reduplicant are always in direct correspondence with segments in the input (with the exception of any epenthesized segments). Therefore, reduplication is not crucially achieved through copying (i.e. BR correspondence). Yet, a relation between the output base and the output reduplicant is important in the proposed framework. BR correspondence relates the output reduplicant to the output base, and BR constraints demand faithfulness between these strings. In all cases of The Emergence of The Unmarked, at least some BR faithfulness constraint is violated and hence must be low-ranking. This is because, by definition, one of the base-reduplicant strings undergoes a change. Conversely, only faithfulness constraints along the BR dimension can force identity of base and reduplicant (i.e. absence of TETU).6 In fact, any degree of similarity between the base and the reduplicant is typically due to BR faithfulness requirements. In the absence of BR faithfulness constraints (or general surface faithfulness constraints), we 4 Even when they are in correspondence with input roots, affixal reduplicants are not subject to root faithfulness, because root faithfulness only holds over segments that are affiliated with both the input root and the output root. Given an affixal reduplicative morpheme in the input, the morphological status of the output reduplicant is an affix, because the reduplicant is the phonological realization of that morpheme. Correspondence relations do not affect the intrinsic morphological status of a morpheme (consistency of exponence; McCarthy and Prince 1993b). 5 Urbanczyk (1996) shows that reduplicants are sometimes roots. Such reduplicants are subject to both 10 and root faithfulness constraints. In this book I focus on forms containing affixal reduplicants. 6 Alternative constraints could also demand identity of base and reduplicant, such as REPEAT (Yip 1995, 1998b; Rose 2000b), or RHYME and ALLITERATE (Yip 1998a, 2000). Raimy & Idsardi (1997) and Kawu (1999) posit a surface relation in reduplicated words between output correspondents of a fissioned input segment.

44

Existential Faithfulness

would expect rampant TETU. Because 10 faithfulness is existentially defined. only one string in the reduplicated word needs to be like the input. Thus, unrestrained by BR requirements, markedness constraints would consistently be able to affect the reduplicated word heavily, even to such extremes that the reduplicant would not be realized at all.1 However, BR constraints may be sufficiently low-ranking in a language that phonological realization of a reduplicative morpheme is indeed prevented, and we will see that this is sometimes the case in Kwakwala (section 2.4). In addition to preventing TETU alternations, BR constraints are required to account for over- and underapplication phenomena in which base aid reduplicant are unexpectedly identical (McCarthy and Prince 1995 after Wilbur 1973). In these phenomena, a configuration disfavored by a markedness constraint is found in one member of the base-reduplicant pair, yet both members undergo an alternation (in overapplication), or neither does (in underapplication). BR faithfulness requirements formalize Wilbur's (1973) idea that these unexpected patterns are due to a pressure for the base and the reduplicant to be identical. I would like to stress that, in the present proposal, reduplication cannot be established through base-reduplicant correspondence alone. As argued above, both reduplicant and base segments are always in direct correspondence with the input. Thus, the presence of a reduplicant in the surface form implies fission of input segments. I assume that such fission is demanded by GEN.8 Put differently, GEN does not generate candidates in which reduplicants correspond to the base only, without correspondence to the input, as shown below:

(6.)

Candidate not generated by GEN It

Input:

Output:

tab i

a b

I

IIII t

a b i

~~ Whether BR constraints (or general surface faithfulness constraints) are existentially quantified, by analogy with 10 constraints, or whether they are universally quantified, as proposed by McCarthy and Prince (1995), remains an open question (as I pointed out in chapter 1). In order to distinguish these 7 Provided that MORPHREAL ('realize a morpheme in an overt and detectable manner') is low ranking.

8

Thanks to Bernard Tranel for discussion on this issue.

45

Reduplicative TETU

alternatives in reduplication, we would need to study cases of multiple correspondence along the BR dimension. This is because universally and existentially quantified faithfulness can be distinguished in instances of fission only: in cases of one-to-one correspondence, identity and preservation are equivalent (see chapter 1). Rose 2000a argues that BR multiple correspondence is found in double reduplication, where a reduplicated word contains two reduplicative morphemes. .

(7. )

Fission along the BR dimension in double reduplication (hypothetical/orm) llJ(h~-IJ~ir t Ja2bj i41 Output:

IRED IRED IRED

tab

IRED

aIRED b

However, there is reason to believe that double reduplication involves two separate instances of base-reduplicant correspondence, one for each reduplicant. Urbanczyk (1995) demonstrates that different reduplicative morphemes in a language show different degrees of faithfulness in their phonological exponents, regardless of whether they are the only reduplicative morpheme in the word, or one of several. She presents data from Lushootseed (Salish), in which the reduplicant that encodes distributive meaning is a closed syllable, while the diminutive reduplicant is an open syllable. These different morphemes must be subject to different types of base-reduplicant correspondence. BR faithfulness constraints relevant to the distributive must dominate NOCODA to allow codas in these reduplicants. In tum, NOCODA must dominate BR faithfulness constraints relevant to the diminutive to ensure that these reduplicants are an open syllable. When a single word contains both types of reduplicants, both faithfulness relations come into play. One relates the base to the distributive reduplicant, the other relates the base to the diminutive reduplicant. Thus, no fission takes place where a single type of BR correspondence relates the base to multiple reduplicants. Rather, reduplicants relate to the base via separate types of BR correspondence. In fact, Urbanczyk presents evidence that the innermost reduplicant copies root material, while the outermost reduplicant copies the innermost reduplicant (such that the base of this reduplicant itself contains a reduplicant). This is depicted below for our hypothetical form:

46 (8.)

Existential Faithfulness Different instances of BR correspondence in double reduplication fL.JlJkLt-llril2JzJc4r tla2bji4l Output:

t a b IRED

a b i

IRED a b i

L..-_ _ _...' ... ' _ _ _- - '

red. I

base of red. I

'--____--'I ... ' __________________--'

red. 2

base of red. 2

Because double reduplications do not seem to provide examples of fission along the base-reduplicant correspondence dimension, they cannot serve as a testing ground for the question of whether BR constraints are existentially quantified.

2.1.4 Summary I have argued that three faithfulness relations play an important role in reduplication: 10 faithfulness, root faithfulness and BR faithfulness. The frrst two relate underlying and surface forms and are existentially quantified. Both types of underlying-surface relations are essential in accounting for the two different types of The Emergence of The Unmarked to be studied in this chapter, namely Output TETU and Reduplicant TETU. In the following two sections, I discuss each type of TETU in tum am illustrate them with a particular kind of Kwakwala reduplication. In this instance of reduplication, a prefixal reduplicant co-occurs with one of two lexical suffIXes: [m'u:t] - [mu:t]9 'useless refuse' or [-(g)i:sa:we:'l] 'left over.'10 Unless indicated otherwise, data containing the suffix [-mu:t] are taken from pages 339-340 of Boas' (1947) grammar.

2.2 Reduplicant TETU: Kwakwala case study Reduplicant TETU in Kwakwala involves the distribution of obstruent codas in reduplicated words. The language shows an asymmetry between 9 I ignore the variation in glottalization in this suffix, as it has no bearing on the analysis. 10 Examples are at first restricted to forms containing the former suffix, although reduplicated forms containing either suffix behave the same with respect to Output and Reduplicant TETU.

Reduplicative TETU

47

obstruents and sonorants: only sonorants contribute to syllable weight in coda position (Zec 1988; Yip 1992). Obstruents are always non-moraic (see evidence below) and when in coda, they violate the constraint WEIGHThyPOSITION (WxP). (9.)

WEIGHTbyPOSITION (WxP): Coda consonants must be moraic (after Hayes 1989)

Because obstruents generally surface in coda without being moraic, this constraint is inactive in non-reduplicative forms. II However, it is active in reduplicative forms, because it prevents non-moraic obstruents from surfacing in reduplicants. Thus the constraint emerges in reduplication. This is TETU. The emergent pattern is shown below: (10. )

Obstruents are not allowed to suiface in reduplicants k-a:xw k'a:-k'axw-m'u:t *k'a:xw-k'axw-m'u:t 'shavings' ts'a:s ~-ts'::ls-m'u:t *ts'a:s-ts'::ls-m'u:t 'old eel-grass' te:i ~-tai-m'u:t *UT I I I

* *

Thus, under the proposed model of correspondence, reduplicants containing a marked structure cannot be more faithful to the input than unreduplicated words containing the same marked structure, simply because these strings are subject to the same faithfulness constraints: broad 10 constraints. 36

2.10.1.3 Normal application The third mode of application that the two models of correspondence account for differently is normal application. In normal application, reduplicated and unreduplicated words both repair marked structures. For example, in Pangasinan (Austronesian; Rose 2000b), Idl cannot surface intervocalically. Instead, its allophone [r] appears. In the reduplicative examples (8Ib and c) below, the base and reduplicant contain different allophones.

36 The emergence of the faithful (section 2.9) is not an instance of the emergence of the marked. It is a special type of normal application, where the reduplicated word as a whole or one member of the base-reduplicant pair happens to lack a marked structure found in unreduplicated words.

88 (81.)

Existential Faithfulness Pangasinanflapping (normal application) a. dabok 'dust' ma-eabok b. ma-eakep 'nice' ma-~-dakep c. dalikan 'clay stove' m-ealikan

'dusty' 'quite nice' 'clay stoves'

Regardless of whether one takes Idl to be the input segment or leI, these examples show that reduplicants must be directly related to the input. That is, if the input contains Idl it is faithfully preserved in the reduplicant of (8Ic), and if the input contains leI it is faithfully preserved in the reduplicant of (8Ib). In these cases the reduplicant cannot be established by means of the BR relation alone, because it contains material absent from the base. Because reduplicants sometimes can contain input material lost in the base due to normal application, McCarthy and Prince (1995) see themselves forced to incorporate the input-reduplicant relation in their model of correspondence. However, it is clear that they consider this relation an unsatisfactory concept (because without the stipulated fixed ranking IB » IR it predicts the richer, partially unattested, typology discussed in the previous section). In classic Correspondence Theory, normal application is achieved when a markedness constraint dominates both input-output and input-reduplicant constraints. The tableaux below show an alternation in an unreduplicated word of Pangasinan, the base of a reduplicated word, and the reduplicant of a reduplicative word respectively (assuming input segment /d/). (82. )

Normal application 'a) unreduvlicated word is unmarked /ma-dakepl *VdV IOIIB Faith 1 madakeo 2 w maeakep

IR Faith

*! *

b) reduvlicated word is unmarked alternation in the base) IRED-dalikan / *VdV IOIIB Faith IR Faith I dl-dalikan *! 2 ,.,. dl-ealikan * c) reduplicated word is unmarked 'alternation in the reduvlicant) /ma-RED-dalikan/ *VdV IOIIB Faith IR Faith 1 ma-dru!-dakeo 2- ma-e -1.-,-,

*! *

89

Reduplicative TETU

McCarthy (1997b) points out that cases such as these do not necessarily call for an input-reduplicant relation. Instead, the reduplicant could be in correspondence with the base only (as in the 'Basic Model' of correspondence, McCarthy and Prince 1995). We then deal with an opaque output whenever a reduplicant contains material present in the input but not the base. McCarthy (1998: 'sympathy' theory of opacity) argues that opaque outputs require reference (more explicitly, faithfulness) to a form that is not an actual input or output. In the optimization IRED + dalikanl - [m-ralikan] this form contains a [d] in the base (m-dalikan). Thus, the Sympathy theory of opacity can account for cases of normal application in which the base, but not the reduplicant is affected. However, this pattern does not constitute an instance of opacity if one assumes that the output strings in a reduplicative word are generated in parallel and are both related to the input by a single correspondence relation: broad input-output correspondence. When a markedness constraint dominates constraints on this relation, any marked structure penalized by the constraint alternates, regardless of whether it is in the base, the reduplicant, or both. (83. )

Normal application affecting the base in reduplicated words a) un reduplicated word is unmarked I ma-dakeD I *VdV 3-10 Faith I 3-Root Faith I madakeD 1 *! 2- marakeD * * b) reduplicated word is unmarked 'alternation in the base) I RED - dalikan I *VdV 3-10 Faith I 3-Root Faith 1 2 -

di-daIikan

*!

m-ralikan

I I

*

c) reduvlicated word is unmarked alternation in the reduplicant Ima-RED-daIikanl *VdV 3-10 Faith 3-Root Faith 1 ma=-dru!-dakeD 2 - ma-r.ruz.-dakeD

*!

I I

This concludes the comparison of Classic Correspondence Theory and the theory proposed in this book with respect to reduplicative patterns. I have shown that the latter covers a larger empirical domain than the former, even though they contain the same number of correspondence relations. It does so without resorting to a universally fixed ranking of faithfulness constraints. Instead it relies on the idea that some faithfulness relations are in a subset relation with each other, namely general and positional faithfulness constraints (broad 10 and Root Faithfulness).

90

Existential Faithfulness

2.10.2 Comparison with other work assuming broad 10 Several researchers have independently proposed ideas similar to broad input-output correspondence. In addition to Struijke (1997), they are Cole (1997), Raimy and Idsardi (1997), Spaelti (1997), and Yip (1998a, 2(00). 1 will briefly discuss these proposals, as well as that of Fitzgerald (1998, 1999) who adopts the basic idea. 37 Raimy and Idsardi propose a broad 10 relation motivated by principles of minimalism (Chomsky 1995). They argue that phonology should exclusively involve phonological elements and hence faithfulness relations should be defined in terms of phonological entities only: they should not make reference to both morphological and phonological constructs. Thus, they claim that input-output correspondence is conceptually superior to the input-base and input-reduplicant correspondence relations of the Full Model, simply because it relates a phonological construct (the input) to another phonological construct (the output), rather than a 'quasi-morphological' construct (the base or reduplicant). Using examples from Bella Coola reduplication quoted in section 2.6 above, Raimy and Idsardi show that broad input-output correspondence can account for languages in which certain processes can affect bases, but not unreduplicated forms. This is, of course, the same argument as the one put forward in this book (i.e. this is a case of Output TETU affecting the base). Spaelti proposes the 'Reduplicate! Model of Correspondence,' consisting ofbase-reduplicant and broad input-output faithfulness (which he calls 'Lexical form-Surface form Faithfulness'). He argues that the broad 10 relation is superior to the IOIIB and IR relations of the Full Model because no universal ranking of faithfulness constraints is needed. Spaelti argues that all TETU predictions of the Full Model (i.e. Reduplicant TETU) can be maintained by eliminating the input-reduplicant relation. However, he does not address the question of why it is always the reduplicant that changes in this type of TETU. Contrary to Raimy and Idsardi (1997) and Spaelti (1997), the present chapter of this book has shown that root faithfulness plays an important role in 37 Comparison is restricted to research adopting general assumptions about reduplication made here (Le. the presence of a morpheme IREDI and some form of duplication). This section therefore excludes the proposal presented in Inkelas and Zoll (2000), even though they postulate a relation similar to broad 10. That proposal assumes three separate 'co-phonologies' (constraint rankings) relevant in reduplicated words: one for each member of the base-reduplicant pair, and one for the reduplicated word as a whole. All contain input-output faithfulness constraints. Inkelas and Zoll argue that this is empirically comparable to a grammar consisting of a single constraint ranking with three types of 10 faithfulness constraints: input-base, input-reduplicant, and broad 10 constraints.

Reduplicative TETU

91

TETU, since it accounts for the fact that reduplicants often contain less marked material than roots (Reduplicant TETU). Fitzgerald (1998, 1999) adopts the broad input-output relation to account for TETU affecting the base in Tohono O'odham (see section 2.6 above). In addition she assumes the input-reduplicant and input-base faithfulness constraints of the Full Model, which she argues are freely rankable. Although these constraints can determine which member of the base-reduplicant pair preserves input material, and which undergoes the TETU alternation, their free ranking prevents an account of the fact that all other things being equal, bases are more faithful to the input than reduplicants. As I have shown, the IR relation is entirely superfluous if one assumes broad 10 correspondence. AffIxes, including reduplicants, are subject to general 10 constraints and no special faithfulness constraints need to refer to them. Although Yip's proposal (l998a, 2000 - see also Rose 2ooob) differs from the one presented in this chapter in important ways, it is similar with respect to the analysis of The Emergence of The Unmarked. Yip argues that TETU involves high-ranking input-output constraints which relate both the base and the reduplicant to the input. Positional faithfulness constraints determine which member of the base-reduplicant pair reflects the input, and which is free to change in The Emergence of The Unmarked. She presents data from Chinese languages which make clear that the relevant positional faithfulness constraints are not necessarily root faithfulness constraints. For instance, faithfulness constraints on word-initial segments may ensure that a prefixal reduplicant is more faithful than the base. 38 All these researchers rely on the standard assumption that MAX is existentially quantified. They do not discuss featural TETU alternations in bases. This type of alternation forms pivotal evidence for existentially defined featural faithfulness constraints in the present book. Raimy & Idsardi (1997) and Fitzgerald (1998, 1999) do not analyze featural alternations, and the question of how IoENT[F] constraints are quantified is not addressed. Yip (l998a, 2000) and Spaelti (1997) discuss featural alternations but do not explicitly address the question either. However, from their analyses it can be inferred that Yip does not assume these constraints to be existentially quantified (see tableaux (25) and (26) in Yip 2000), whereas Spaelti assumes they are existentially defined (see tableau (53) in chapter 2 of Spaelti 1997). Cole (1997) also aims to explain TETU which affects bases. However, rather than assuming broad input-output constraints, she proposes disjunctive constraints involving input-base and input-reduplicant constraints of the Full Model. A disjunctive constraint is satisfied when either of the 'member constraints' is satisfied (Smolensky 1993; cf. Hewitt and Crowhurst 1996). Like

38

See also the analysis of Chamorro in section 2.8.

92

Existential Faithfulness

Yip, Cole argues that positional faithfulness constraints detenmne whether the base or the reduplicant surfaces faithfully.

2.11 Conclusion This chapter introduced a model of reduplication in which the base arxl reduplicant are considered equal with respect to the phonology. This is established formally such that both strings are related to the input by input-output correspondence. In reduplication, each input segment has the potential to undergo fission and have a correspondent in both the base and the reduplicant. The distinct behavior often exhibited by the strings results from the difference in their morphological status. It is formally derived from the idea that roots in bases, but not affixal reduplicants, are subject to faithfulness requirements of the phonology-morphology interface, namely input-root faithfulness (usually referred to as 'Root Faith'; Beckman 1997). This chapter identified a novel generalization about reduplication: it is not only reduplicants that tend to be less marked than unreduplicated words; sometimes reduplicated words as a whole are less marked. Such a pattern is predicted to occur under the proposed model and the claim that input-output faithfulness constraints are existentially defined. In reduplication, one member of the base-reduplicant pair can change in response to a markedness constraint without violating faithfulness requirements. I have identified languages in which either the base or the reduplicant can alternate, even though such alternations are prohibited in unreduplicated words (The Emergence of The Unmarked). In fact, both strings can be equally unlike the input, but along different dimensions. Still, it is usually possible to identify which is the base and which is the reduplicant (cf. Inkelas and Zoll 2000, who claim that they cannot be distinguished under these circumstances). When the markedness constraint driving the TETU alternation demands alternations in both strings, the reduplicant changes. When it demands only one to change, it single-handedly detenmnes which (Provided Root Faith is low-ranking). In previous theories, TETU alternations in the base constituted instances of opacity. This is because bases were taken to be prior to reduplicants; either literally (in serial, rule-based theories) or conceptually (in classic Correspondence Theory). In these theories, the reduplicant is derived from or related to the base, not directly to the input. Thus, under these assumption, opacity arises when the reduplicant contains material not present in the base. 1he proposed framework eliminates this particular type of opacity, which was traditionally seen as problematic for output-oriented theories such as QT. I have compared the proposed model to classic Correspondence Theory (section 2.10.1). The two frameworks differ empirically only in their account of The Emergence of The Unmarked. In the earlier theory only the reduplicant could

Reduplicative TETU

93

alternate; in the theory proposed here either the reduplicant or the base can. The proposed model is able to account for this slightly larger number of reduplicative patterns without complicating its architecture. The correspondence relations and faithfulness constraints are equal in number to those assumed in classic Correspondence Theory. Instead of input-reduplicant correspondence, I assume broad 10 faithfulness. The fact that bases tend to be more faithful than reduplicants results from the subset relation between this general 10 relation and the specific Root Faithfulness, rather than the universal ranking root faithfulness/input-base faithfulness » affix faithfulness.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 3

Feature movement and dissimilation

The main thesis of this book holds that faithfulness regulates preservation of underlying material, and faithfulness constraints are existentially quantified. Empirically, existential faithfulness differs from universal faithfulness (McCarthy and Prince 1995) in segmental fission. 3-IDENT[±F] constraints 00 not require all output segments to be identical to a given corresponding input segment. Instead, only one must resemble it. The other can change to become less marked, without compromising faithfulness. This chapter looks at cases where the marked output correspondent of a fissioned input segment coalesces with another segment. I will show that this combination of fission and coalescence results in phonological patterns usually referred to as 'feature movement' and 'dissimilation.') Like distributing diphthongization and TETU in reduplication, these phenomena show simultaneous preservation of underlying elements and a decrease in markedness. The chapter first focuses on feature movement (section 3.1). Descriptively, it occurs when a feature value underlyingly associated with one segment surfaces on another. Such a state of affairs has been taken as evidence for the idea that features are entities independent of segments, and can literally reassociate - from one segment to another. However, I show that the existential definition of IDENT[F] constraints predicts an alternative, segment-based, explanation of this phenomenon. In the proposed account, an underlying segment undergoes fission and divides its feature specifications between two surface correspondents, in the same vein as Middle English sometimes divides input features in diphthongization when borrowing words from French (chapter 1), and Japanese divides features in reduplication (chapter 1; section 2.7). By means of such fission, markedness of a form is improved, while each underlying feature specification of the fissioned segment is preserved in the surface form. I argue that feature movement differs from distributing diphthongization only in that the more marked surface segment resulting from distributing fission coalesces with another segment in the word. Section 3.1 includes subsections 1 Other terms used to refer to these phenomena (or special cases of them) are 'floating features,' 'feature displacement'; and 'cooccurence restrictions,' 'OCP,' and 'Morpheme Structure Constraint.' These terms were coined in derivational theories. and I will use them in a descriptive fashion.

96

Existential Faithfulness

dealing with fission and coalescence. The main idea of this proposal was previously presented in Struijke 2000b,c. I compare the segment-based account of feature movement with the feature-based account in chapter 4. The second part of this chapter (section 3.2) deals with cooccurrence restrictions. Many languages do not allow identical or similar segments in a domain. For instance, syllables in Seri (Hokan) never contain more than one glottalized segment, and words in Georgian (Caucasian) do not normally contain more than one rhotic segment (for an overview of these and other dissimilation cases, see Suzuki 1998). Following recent research, I argue that dissimilation is driven by a need to reduce segmental markedness (Alderete 1997; Ita and Mester 1996; Suzuki 1998).2 However, I depart from this research in claiming that it also ensures faithfulness. That is, dissimilation is a way to improve on the markedness of a form, while simultaneously achieving faithfulness of underlying material. The argument is based on the idea that one output segment can preserve identical feature specifications of two coalesced input segments, and the idea that only one correspondent of a fissioned segment must preserve its marked features. Thus, like feature movement, dissimilation involves both coalescence am distributing fission. This can be briefly illustrated by labial dissimilation in the Akkadian (Semitic) mapping Ima-ereh/ - [ne-ereb]3 'entrance' (data analyzed earlier in Hume 1992; McCarthy 1981; Odden 1994; Suzuki 1998). In the proposed analysis, the input labial 1m! undergoes fission. Only its second output correspondent is labial. This correspondent coalesces with the labial fbI, which ensures faithfulness to both [lab] feature specifications. The first correspondent of 1m! can then acquire the unmarked place specification to better satisfy the markedness constraint *LAB. The main idea of this proposal was previously presented in Struijke 2000b,c and Struijke and de Lacy 2000. This chapter includes two case studies of languages which show feature movement and dissimilation, namely Sanskrit (section 3.3) and Cuzco Quechua (section 3.4). The relatedness of the two phenomena is discussed in these sections. In particular, I will show that movement and dissimilation are sometimes indistinguishable because they can both be a means to avoid one particular marked structure (i.e. both are sometimes driven by the same markedness constraint).

2 As Ita and Mester (1996) point out, OCP accounts in Autosegmental Theory assumed (albeit more implicitly) that there are cooccurrence restrictions on marked, but not unmarked features. The OCP was thought to apply at a stage during which representations are underspecified for 'default' (i.e. unmarked) features. 3 Underscore points to the relevant segments.

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

97

3.1 Feature movement As mentioned above, the tenn 'feature movement' refers, descriptively, to a situation in which a feature specification is associated with a segment with which it is not associated underlyingly. For example, in Esimbi (Bantoid) the feature specification [-hi] can only be associated with words in initial syllables. When a [-hi] input vowel surfaces in a non-initial syllable, its height feature specification is preserved on the vowel in the initial syllable (Stallcup 1980a,b; Hyman 1988; Walker 1997). The underlying [-hi] vowel defaults to [+hi] in the surface root. 4 (1. )

Esimbi feature transfer ([-hi] vowels are underlined) Qsi 'laugh' lu-rfJ ~ri 'daub' li-g~ ~bi 'bushfowl' li-sQ/ ~u 'hoe' li-b~ ~bi 'cane rat' lu-s~

Obviously, some markedness constraint demands that vowels in non-initial syllables be [+hi] (perhaps because they are unstressed and must be of low sonority, or perhaps there is a more general constraint against non-high vowels which is not active in initial or stressed syllables).s The fact that the feature specification is preserved is clearly due to some faithfulness requirement. Yet, feature movement is problematic for the classic Correspondence Theory of faithfulness (as Walker (1997) points out). This is because it assigns two properties to featural faithfulness constraints. First, it assumes that featural faithfulness is regulated through segmental correspondence. Second, constraints on this relation are universally quantified. It is the combination of these properties that makes feature movement problematic for the theory. Because classic IDENT[F] constraints demand featural faithfulness under segmental correspondence, they cannot enforce feature value preservation outside of the segment. Any output segment that preserves a feature value associated with a given input segment must be in correspondence with that segment. For instance, in the Esimbi example, lei of lu-sel must be in correspondence with both vowels of the output [osi] because the first preserves the [-hi] feature value, and the second preserves the color feature specifications. However, classic IDENT[F] is universally quantified, demanding all corresponding segments be featurally identical. Thus, even though the mapping leI - [0] satisfies the classic I show in section 3.l.2 that this is not an instance of feature metathesis. Thanks to Larry Hyman for information on this point. In the tableau below I use the descriptive constraint *[-hi]/non-initial o. 4

5

98

Existential Faithfulness

IOENT constraint on height features in the input-output pair lu-sel- [olsi 1], the mapping leI - [i] violates this constraint. Hence, the idea that a feature specification moves to ensure faithfulness of that feature cannot be formalized using classic IOENT[F]. Instead, classic Correspondence Theory creates a paradox: feature value preservation must be due to a faithfulness constraint, yet faithfulness constraints are violated because not all corresponding segments are featurally identical. Some have chosen to employ MAX[F] constraints to deal with this problem (e.g. Parker 1997; Walker 1997). These researchers assume that features are entities which are independent of segments and enter into correspondence relations of their own (Lamontagne and Rice 1995; Lombardi 1995, 1998; Causley 1997a,b). MAX[F] constraints enforce preservation of features independently of segmental correspondence. While the MAX[F] approach is empirically adequate, I argue that the original insight in Correspondence Theory can be maintained: features are properties of segments, and featural faithfulness is mediated by segmental correspondence. This insight is modified, however, by employing existentially defined IOENT[F] constraints. The definition of existential IOENT[F] is repeated below.6 (2. )

3-IOENT[ ±F] 10: Let seg E input be in the domain of 9t, and seg is [aF]; then there is some seg' E output, such that seg9tseg' and seg' is [aF]. Some output segment corresponding to an input segment preserves the feature specification [aFJ of that input segment.

Because an existential IOENT[F] constraint is satisfied when a feature value associated with an input segment is preserved on some corresponding output segment, apparent feature movement actually involves segmental fission. An input segment corresponds to multiple output segments, and some of its feature specifications are preserved on one of these correspondents, while other specifications are preserved on the other. This resolves the paradox described above: an 3-loENT[±F] constraint can ensure preservation of an input feature specification through segmental correspondence, without imposing the stringent requirement that all corresponding segments must be featurally identical to the 6 This constraint shares important characteristics with the MAX[F] constraint. I show in chapter 4 that both are unidirectional, existentially quantified, and demand faithfulness to a particular feature value. The crucial difference between the two is whether features are seen as independent entities or properties of segments.

99

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

input segment. Under the present analysis, feature movement is thus an epiphenomenon of segmental faithfulness, rather than a primitive notion. I will now discuss fission and coalescence, which combine to produce feature movement (and dissimilation) in the existential faithfulness framework. I show that classic IDENT[F] need not only be modified to account for distributing fission as shown in chapter 1, it must also be modified to account for coalescence (Pater 1999).

3.1.1 Feature movement as fission and coalescence Feature movement within the existential faithfulness framework is a combination of two patterns independently found in phonology: segmental fission and coalescence. To see this, consider again the Esimbi example lu-sel [osi]. I suggested above that the input segment leI undergoes fission and has two output correspondents, realized as [0] and [i]. All feature specifications of the input segment leI are preserved on one of these output segments. The feature values [-back] and [-round] are preserved on the second vowel [i], and the feature value [-hi] is preserved on the first vowel [0]. In addition to preserving the height feature of the second input vowel lei, [0] preserves the color specifications of the first input vowel luI. Thus, the two input vowels coalesce. This is depicted below. It bears repeating that lines are indications of correspondence relations, equivalent to the numerical indices, not autosegmental association lines. (3.)

Feature value transfer as fission and coalescence (only input features are shown) [-rd, -back, -hi]

[+rd, +back, +hi]

input:

output:

U1

S2

0 1.3

S2

[+rd, +back, -hi]

e3

i3 [-rd, -back]

Because feature transfer involves both fission and coalescence, I discuss these phenomena in turn, building on the existent body of research in these areas.

]00

Existential Faithfulness

3.1.1.1 Distributing fission The general topic of fission has been addressed in chapter 1. Phonological fission in feature movement (and distributing diphthongization) occurs under a specific set of circumstances. First, some markedness constraint prohibits feature specifications associated with an input segment from being preserved together on a single output correspondent. A second, and equally important prerequisite is that feature values must be maintained due to highranking of certain 3-IDENT[±FJ constraints. Third, fission itself must be allowed: INTEGRITY has to be low-ranking. Finally, surface faithfulness constraints evaluating output segments related to the same input segment must be of low rank. This is because, at a minimum, one feature specification is found on one but not the other segment (i.e. the moved feature value). 'The constraint schema expressing these circumstances is given below:

(4.)

Ranking schema fission in feature movement (+ distr diphthongization) Markedness constraint, 3-IDENT[±FJ» INTEGRITY, IDENT[FJII

3.1.1.2 Coalescence Coalescence is the second component of feature value transfer. It involves fusion of two underlying segments into a single surface segment. 'The resulting segment typically combines feature specifications of both participants.' For example, coalescence of In! and fbI might result in 1m!, preserving the nasal feature value of the first segment and the labial feature value of the second segment. Within Correspondence Theory, coalescence involves multiple correspondence: two input segments are in correspondence with one output segment. MAXIO is satisfied because each input segment has an output correspondent. However, when the contributing segments are not identical, not all input feature specifications can normally be preserved in the output. That is, a conflict arises between IDENT[F] constraints. Which feature specifications are preserved in the output is determined by the ranking of these constraints. I follow most research on coalescence by assuming that IDENT[F] constraints are unidirectional and must be specified for feature values, as set out below (Gnanadesikan 1995, 1997; McCarthy 1995; and Pater 1999, 2000; see also Casali 1996 in the ParselFill model of faithfulness (Prince and Smolensky 1 Coalescence sometimes preserves features of one of the participating segments only. such that on the surface, coalescence is indistinguishable from deletion of one of the segments (Gnanadesikan 1995; Causley 1997b; McCarthy 1995; Pater 1999).

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

101

1993». This departure from the original definition of IDENT[F] constraints is necessary to distinguish the following types of structures: (5.)

Classic 1DENT[F] constraints cannot distinguish (a) and (b) input: (a)

output:

eVe n

d

n

(b)

eVe d

n

d

Classic IDENT[F] constraints are defined symmetrically and can therefore not distinguish representations such as those in (Sa) and (5b) (Pater 1999; McCarthy and Prince 1995). (6.)

Classic IDENT[F]: Correspondent segments have identical values for the feature F If x9ty and x is [yF], then y is [yF] (McCarthy and Prince 1995)

Classic IDENT constraints are symmetrical in two ways. First, they are bidirectional: the output must be like the input, and vice versa. Second, they are value-blind: a change from a minus value to a plus value incurs a violation, as does the reverse change. Thus, mappings 8 in (Sa) and 0 in (5b) equally violate classic IDENT[nasal]: this constraint cannot distinguish nasalization in the former from denasalization in the latter. The solution to this problem relies on the idea that 3-IDENT[±F] constraints are asymmetrical. Firstly, they refer to specific feature values (pater 1999). That is, the universal constraint set CON contains both 3-IDENT[ +nasal]1O and 3-IDENT[-nasal ]10. The former penalizes denasalization, while the latter penalizes nasalization. Specificity of feature values is only viable if constraints are unidirectional. This is the second way in which 3-IDENT[±F] constraints are asymmetrical. If they were bi-directional, feature value specificity would have no effect, and denasalization and nasalization would be evaluated equally after all. For instance, the Idl - [n] mapping (8) in (Sa) violates bidirectional IDENT[ +nasal] because the [+nasal] output segment has no [+nasal] input correspondent. The mapping In! - [d] (0) in (5b) violates the same constraint, because the [+nasa1] input segment has no [+nasa1] output segment. Both mappings also violate Ident[-nasal] for the opposite reasons. Only the combination of feature value specificity and unidirectionality can distinguish nasalization from denasalization (Pater 1999).

102

Existential Faithfulness

One of the core proposals in this book is that faithfulness mandates preservation of input material in the output, and that faithfulness constraints are therefore unidirectional, going from the input to the output (chapter 1). For this reason, I assume that 3-IDENT[±F) constraints demand feature specifications associated with an input segment be preserved on an output correspondent of that segment. There are no additional IDENT[F) constraints that require feature specifications associated with an output segment be associated with an input correspondent (e.g. IDENT[+nasal]OI (0-+1), Pater 1999). Having IDENT[F] constraints for each direction would introduce considerable redundancy in the grammar (see Bakovic 1999 for a discussion of this point). For instance, the mapping ItJ - [n) would incur violations of both wENT[-nasal)lo and IDENT[+nasallm, while In! - [t) would incur violations of both IDENT[+nasal)lo and wENT[-nasal)OI' Instead, I assume only the following IDENT[F) constraints for nasality: (7.)

3-WENT[+nasal) 10: Let seg e input be in the domain of 9t, and seg is [+nasal); then there is some seg' e output, such that seg9tseg' and seg' is [+nasal) Some segment corresponding to an input segment preserves the feature specification [+nasal] of the input segment.

(8. )

3-WENT[-nasal) 10: Let seg e input be in the domain of 9t, and seg is [-nasal) then there is some seg' e output, such that seg9tseg' and seg' is [-nasal) Some segment corresponding to an input segment preserves the feature specification [-nasal] of the input segment.

Existential quantification of these constraints is of no consequence in coalescence, because each input segment has only one output correspondent. What is crucial in accounting for coalescence is unidirectionality ( I -+ 0) and feature value specificity ([aFJ). An important question is how privativity might be incorporated into this discussion. The theory of privativity assumes that a feature or feature specification has no plus and minus values. For example, a nasal segment is associated with the feature [nasal), but an oral segment is not specified for or associated with a nasal feature. Privativity can be incorporated in an WENT model of featural faithfulness and can successfully differentiate denasalization from nasalization, voicing from de voicing, etc. (Lombardi 1996). However, it is only able to do so if there are IDENT[F] constraints in both the input-output and

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

103

output-input directions. That is, the mapping InJ - [t] violates privative 3-loENT[nasal]IO (1--+0) and the mapping It! - [n] violates privative 3-loENT[nasal]OI (0-+1) (Pater 1999, 2(00). This view is inconsistent with my claim that faithfulness constraints require preservation of input material in the output, and I will therefore not address privativity in 3-loENT[±F] constraints again. Since there are faithfulness constraints relevant to all feature values in the input, coalescence of non-identical segments always incurs 3-loENT[±F]IO violations. For this reason I do not assume the additional constraint UNIFORMITY which penalizes coalescence in classic Correspondence Theory (see chapter 1; Keer 1999). However, coalescence of segments belonging to different morphemes is often disallowed in languages, even when they otherwise permit such multiple correspondence. In these languages the constraint 3-MoRPHDIS is high-ranking. (9.)

3-MoRPHDls (Morphemic Disjointness) Let seg-x E input Morphl, and seg-y E input Morph2, and seg-x', seg-y' E output, and segx9tseg-x', seg-y9tseg-y'. Then there is some seg-x':;i: seg-y'. (McCarthy and Prince 1995 (adapted». The disjointness of input morphemes is preserved in the output. (segments belonging to different morphemes do not coalesce)

Feature movement involves coalescence, and hence can only take place when the 3-loENT[±F]lo constraints violated in coalescence are ranked sufficiently low. Features can move from a segment in one morpheme to a segment in a different morpheme only when 3-MoRPHDls is also low-ranking.

3.1.2 Combining fission and coalescence into feature movement This section concludes the general introduction to the proposed analysis of feature movement. Here I present evidence that the Esimbi pattern is indeed the result of fission and coalescence, and should not be analyzed as literal feature movement, or an instance of feature metathesis. I also explain how the proposal accounts for the fact that, cross-linguistically, feature movement is most likely to involve segments that are featurally alike. Diagram (3) depicting Esimbi feature movement is repeated below for convenience.

104 (10.)

Existential Faithfulness Feature movement as fission and coalescence (only input features are shown) [+back, +hi]

input:

output:

UI

s

01.2

s

[+back, -hi]

[-back, -hi] e2

i2 [-back]

Tableau (11) illustrates the ranking of constraints that make this form optimal. Esimbi has a high-ranking markedness constraint banning the feature [-hi] from surfacing in its underlying location. The height value of lei is not lost (as in candidate 2), but preserved in the initial syllable, due to the high rank of 3-IDENT[-hi]lO. This existential constraint forces fission of leI (i.e. it forces a violation of INTEGRITY). Since one output correspondent of leI carries the [-hi] feature specification, the 3-IDENT[-hi]lo constraint is satisfied, so the other correspondent can be unmarked [+hi]. The fIrSt correspondent of root segment leI coalesces with affix segment lui, which loses its [+hi] specification. Apparently, preservation of feature value [-hi] associated with lei is of more importance than preservation of the value [+hi] associated with lui (i.e. 3-IDENT[-hi] dominates 3-IDENT[+hi]). Even though one correspondent of lei coalesces with lui, there is no conflict of 3-IDENT constraints for color features since the color features of both input vowels can be preserved. Note that this instance of coalescence involves segments from different morphemes. Hence 3-MoRPHDls is violated and must be low-ranking also. Fission was established so that the feature specifications of leI could be divided between its output correspondents. Therefore, these two segments are not identical, and the surface faithfulness constraint 3-IDENT[-hih:I. is violated and low-ranking (as are surface constraints on color features).

105

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

(11. )

Feature movement as seJlmental fission and coalescence lu)-se.j *[-hi]/non- 1 3-IDENT 3-IDENl INTEG I IDENT I 3-MORPll I [-hi]rr : DIS [+hi] initial 0- I [-hi]

*!

1

use? 2 U

si 2

30)2 si 2

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

*! *

*

I I

I I I I I I

*

I I

*

I now briefly discuss some data from Esimbi which provide evidence for the claim that features in this language do not literally reassociate. In addition, these data show that feature value transfer is not in fact an instance of feature metathesis, which one might be tempted to conclude when considering alternations such as lu-sel - [osi]. In this example, an underlying sequence of a high and a mid-high feature specification is seemingly reversed to yield the sequence mid-high and high. 8 However, forms containing a different prefix (namely the one indicating plural class 6) show that a single feature specification 'moves,' rather than two feature values being switched. The infinitive prefix vowel in the Esimbi examples discussed so far is underlyingly high. However, the class 6 prefix vowel is underlyingly low (Hyman 1988). Concatenation of this low vowel with a root containing a mid-high vowel does not result in a surface form with a mid-high - low sequence, as one would expect if feature metathesis were involved. Thus, la-t'Jl 'ear' does not surface as *[a-ta]. Instead, the corresponding surface form is [:Hi], where the initial vowel is a 'compromise' in height between the underlying root vowel and the prefix vowel ([:>] is a mid-low vowel). The second vowel defaults to unmarked high. This form shows that features do not reassociate. Instead, segments coalesce. It is fairly common for a coalesced vowel to be a compromise between its contributing segments (see Casali 1996; Gnanadesikan 1997 for recent accounts). Summarizing the feature movement proposal, we predict that feature movement is due to a combination of segmental fission and coalescence once we assume an existential definition of IDENT[F][o faithfulness constraints. Feature movement is crucially made possible by the assumption that, in fission, only

The Esimbi vowel system is as follows: high u a a mid-high e 'J 0 mid-low E a a low

8

106

Existential Faithfulness

one output correspondent needs to preserve a given input feature specification to satisfy an existentially defined IDENT[F] constraint. The idea that feature movement involves segment fission allows an account of the fact that, cross-linguistically, feature movement is most likely to occur when the segments involved are similar. I refer to this generalization as the 'similarity effect: 9 For purposes of exposition, I explain the account by referring to a language that involves vowel height movement like Esimbi, but allows such movement only when the vowels involved agree in their specifications for [back]. I refer to this hypothetical language as Esimbi'.lo In Esimbi', the feature movement shown in (l2a) is not allowed, but the feature movement shown in (12b) is attested. (12. )

The similarity effect (only input features are shown) (a) Ungrammatical feature movement in Esimbi' [+back, +hi]

input:

output:

U1

0 1.2

[+back, -hi]

[-back, -hi]

e2

i2 [-back]

(b) Grammaticalfeature movement in Esimbi' [-back, +hi]

input:

output:

il

el• 2 [-back, -hi]

[-back, -hi] ~

i2 [-back]

These structures differ with respect to the surface constraint on back feature specifications. (12a) violates it, while (12b) satisfies it. The similarity effect is

The similarity effect also holds in dissimilation (section 3.2). Sanskrit, analyzed below, constitutes a real-language example of the similarity effect. 9

10

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

107

therefore achieved when this constraint is sufficiently high-ranking in the grammar. Before concluding this section, I would like to briefly point to the connection between feature movement and dissimilation. In Esimbi, [-hi] vowels can surface in word-initial syllables, and are banned in all following syllables. There is, then, only one vowel per word that can be specified as [-hi]. Thus, a cooccurence restriction on [-hi] vowels is an emergent characteristic of Esimbi. An important connection between feature movement and cooccurrence restrictions can be drawn. Both are driven by conspiring markedness and faithfulness constraints and both involve fission and coalescence. The following sections discuss the role of fission and coalescence in dissimilation (3.2) and show how they combine to produce dissimilatory feature movement in Sanskrit (3.3) and Cuzco Quechua (3.4).

3.2 Dissimilation as a result of fission and coalescence Two segments dissimilate when they are specified for one or more identical marked features. One of the segments stays unchanged, while the other seems to delete or becomes unmarked. I will focus here on repairs involving feature changes, because they show the importance of the existential quantification of faithfulness constraints (but see also section 1.2.3.3 in which both repairs are discussed). Let us return to the Akkadian example mentioned in the introduction of this chapter (Hume 1992; McCarthy 1981; Odden 1994; Suzuki 1998; data from Von Soden 1969). Labial segments cannot normally co-occur in words of this language. As mentioned earlier, I argue that this cooccurrence restriction follows from the basic segmental markedness requirement *LAB, rather than a constraint that explicitly bans mUltiple labial segments such as an OCP-type constraint (Yip 1998b, following Goldsmith 1976, Leben 1973), or self-conjoined *LAB&*LAB (Alderete 1997; Ito and Mester 1996; MacEachern 1999; Suzuki 1998). *LAB is better satisfied when one of two labials changes to an unmarked coronal. I claim that this alternation does not incur a faithfulness violation, because the segment that remains labial in the output ensures preservation of the labial input specifications associated with both labial input segments. As in feature movement, dissimilation involves segmental fission and coalescence. This is depicted below.

108 (13. )

Existential Faithfulness Dissimilation as fission and coalescence (lines indicate relevant correspondence relations)

input:

output:

[+nas,lab] m,

a

e

r

e

n,

e

e

r

e

[+nas, cor]

[-cont, lab] b2

b'2 [-cont, lab]

In the mapping above, all existential faithfulness constraints are satisfied. Input segment ImI preserves its manner specification on its first output correspondent, and its place specification on the second correspondent. Input segment Ibl preserves both its place and manner specifications on its single output correspondent (coalesced with the second correspondent of ImI). The output now contains only one labial; hence violations of *LAB are minimized. The fact that the segmental inventory of Akkadian contains labials indicates that 3-IDENT[lab] dominates *LAB. Thus, the markedness constraint is usually inactive in the language. However, it is able to emerge in the presence of two (or more) labial segments in the input. In essence, then, dissimilation is like The Emergence of The Unmarked in reduplication: segments undergo fission, and, instead of demanding two identical output segments, existentially defined faithfulness constraints permit one correspondent to conform to a lower-ranked markedness constraint. I discuss this analogy further at the end of this section. The basic interaction of constraints in Akkadian is illustrated in the tableau below with the input just discussed. Candidate 1 is identical to the input. It contains two labials and hence incurs two violations of *LAB. In the optimal candidate (number 2), fission and coalescence applies as described above. This candidate is less marked than the first, because it contains one labial only: it violates *LAB once. At the same time, 10 faithfulness is achieved because both labial specifications of the input are preserved on the remaining labial segment. The form violates INTEGRITY, because it involves segmental fission. Candidate 3 is phonetically identical to candidate 2: both contain one labial and one coronal. However, in candidate 3 fission and coalescence are not established, arxl so the final input labial does not have a labial correspondent. Hence it causes a fatal violation of un dominated 3-IDENT[lab].

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

(14.)

Dissimilation as

Im\a-ereb/

se~mental_fission

3-loENT Llab]

*LAB

109 a nd coalescence

\ 3-loENT I 3-loENT : [+nas] : [-cont]

I

INTEG

I

**!

1

m a-ereb2

2

*

".

n a-ereb 1, *!

3 ni a-ereb2

*

I I I

I

I

I

I

I

*

Note that it is only the feature specification [lab] that dissimilates. Consider for instance the mapping Ima-lmenul - [ne-lmenu] 'loss, damage.' Marked manner and voice are not dissimilated to obtain the output *[!e-lmenu]. Just as base-reduplicant faithfulness constraints can block The Emergence of The Unmarked in reduplication, constraints on surface correspondence can block 'dissimilation to the unmarked,' in this case 'dissimilation to the maximally unmarked' (as suggested in Struijke and de Lacy 2(00). (15.)

IOENT[F]ll Let seg E output be in the domain of 9t, and seg is [aF]; then there is some seg' E output, such that seg9tseg' and seg' is [aF]. Some output segment corresponding to another output segment preserves the feature specification [aF] of that segment.

Blocking of dissimilation is illustrated in the tableau below for the input Ima-lmenul. For reasons of space, this tableau is divided into three sub-tableaux. The first illustrates dissimilation of labial place. The second shows blocking of manner dissimilation, and the third blocking of voice dissimilation. The candidate set discussed includes the faithful candidate and candidates showing different degrees of dissimilation. Candidate 2 dissimilates place only; candidate 3 dissimilates both place and manner; and candidate 4 dissimilates place, manner and voicing specifications. Following Struijke and de Lacy (2000), I indicate surface relatedness by the subscript ~. Labial dissimilation is allowed in Akkadian because *LAB dominates IOENT[labhr: it is more important to reduce labial markedness than it is to maintain labial identity between output segments related to the same input segment. Nasal dissimilation is not permitted, because IDENT[+nasal]ll dominates *NASAL: it is more important to preserve nasal identity in a surface relation than it is to reduce nasal markedness. Similarly, voice dissimilation is prohibited because IDENT[ +voice]ll dominates 3-IOENT[+voice].

110 (16,)

Existential Faithfulness , 1 M0 d'ISSlml , 'IattOn ' to the entirely

Ima-Imenul 1 ma-Imenu 2 r!iI' nya-Imyenu 3 ENTtlab] IIDENT -LAB : [+voice]n: (DENT( lab1IT I

I I

-•

I I

I

•

I

I

!

ID£NTflab J,.,.

3-IDENT [+voice]

I I I I I I

. I

I

*VOICE I3

** ** ** *

When all relevant surface faithfulness constraints are low-ranking we expect the least marked segment to emerge in dissimilation, This is the main point made in Struijke and de Lacy (2000), Note, however, that a change to the completely unmarked is unlikely, It would require a language in which manner,

11 The first, shaded sub-tableau is summarized in the shaded column of the second and third sub-tableaux. 12 For reasons of clarity, I show only those violations incurred by the segments under discussion, 13 Again, I show only those violations incurred by the segments under discussion

111

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

place, and laryngeal dissimilation occur independently from one another throughout the language. To my knowledge, no such language exists. 14 In languages not exhibiting dissimilation, fission might be prohibited by high-ranking of INTEGRITY, or by a ranking in which all surface faithfulness constraints dominate all segmental markedness constraints, so that no markedness constraint is able to force fission and coalescence. Consider for example the lack of labial dissimilation in English, exemplified in the tableau below. Dissimilation in candidate 1 is prevented by the ranking IDENT[labh:l: » *LAB. No dissimilation has taken place in candidate 2 and 3. These forms are segmentally identical, but suboptimal candidate 3 involves gratuitous fission and coalescence. In this candidate, fission does not involve distribution of features: the marked place feature is preserved on both output segments. Hence, fission does not serve to reduce markedness. Coalescence of the first correspondent is not needed to guarantee faithfulness, since the second correspondent of fissioned Ipl preserves the labial feature specification. Because fission and coalescence are gratuitous, this candidate is harmonically bounded by optimal candidate 2, which does not involve such instances of mUltiple correspondence. Candidate 3 can never be optimal because it incurs a violation of INTEGRITY. Thus, simultaneous fission and coalescence is never generated unless they are coerced by markedness constraints.

(17. )

No unmotivated fission and coalescence *LAB Ip 1aP2a/ 3-IDENT : IDENT I flabl rr flabl I * ! * 1 PUat 2a I 2 IF p,ap,a ** I 3 p"ap,a **

I I I

: INTEGRITY

*

I I I

I

*!

Thus, surface faithfulness constraints can block dissimilation. We saw in section 3.1.2 that surface faithfulness constraints also account for a particular kind of blocking in feature movement, namely one due to the 'similarity effect.' The similarity effect is also found in dissimilation and can be accounted for in the same way. In some languages, cooccurrence restrictions hold over segments sharing a particular feature, but are enforced only when the segments involved agree in additional feature specifications. That is, dissimilation is blocked when '4 In both Konni (Gur; Cahill 1999) and Yimas (Austronesian; Foley 1991), rhotic dissimilation results in Irrl - [rt] alternations. This, however, does not appear to constitute counter examples to this observation (contrary to Struijke and de Lacy 20(0). Like [t], [r] seems to be specified as [-cont] in these languages, and the segments are also alternants outside the domain of dissimilation.

112

Existential Faithfulness

two segments are not similar along multiple dimensions. (Frish 1996; Frish, Broe and Pierrehumbert 1997; MacEachern 1999; Padgett 1992; Pierrehumbert 1993; Yip 1989). For instance, in Russian, coronals agreeing in continuancy arxl sonorancy never cooccur, yet coronals that differ in these feature specifications cooccur freely (Padgett 1992). Surface faithfulness constraints on these latter two features must be high-ranking to prevent fission that would establish a surface relation between segments disagreeing in continuancy and sonorancy. To conclude this introductory section on dissimilation, I compare it with reduplicative feature TETU. Conceptually these phenomena are similar in that they both prevent a sequence of potentially identical segments from surfacing. In this book, this conceptual similarity is encoded formally by means of similar constraint interactions. The rankings that force reduplicative feature TETU and dissimilation are summarized in the table below. (18.) ( 18. )

Dissimilation to the unmarked compared to TETU in reduplication dissimilation dissimilation 3-lDENT[±Fl » *[F1 » iDENTfFlyy blockin dissimilation _blockingjdissim ila^ I d e n t [F] tt , 3 -I d e n t [±F1 » *[F1 redu licative 1ETU reduplicative TETU________ 3-lDENT[±Fl » *fF1 » lDENTrF1BB blocking reduplicative TETU I d e n t [F1br , 3 -I d e n t [±F1 » *[F1

I suggested in chapter 1 that base-reduplicant faithfulness may be subsumed under a general surface faithfulness relation dubbed 'generalized surface faithfulness.' Under that proposal the table above can be reduced to the one below.

(19.)

Dissimilation and reduplicative TETU under generalized surface faithfulness dissimilation 3-IoENT[±F] » *[F] » IOENT[Fh:l: reduplicative TETU IOENT[F]~s 3-IoENT[±F]» *[F] blockinK

Given generalized surface faithfulness, feature dissimilation and reduplicative TETU require the same ranking of 10 faithfulness, surface faithfulness, arxl featural markedness constraints. Yet the presence of one of these patterns in a language does not necessarily imply the presence of the other. This is because they are evaluated differently by some other constraints. Fission in dissimilation always incurs a violation of INTEGRITY. When segments belonging to different morphemes coalesce to facilitate dissimilation, 3-MoRPHDls is violated in addition. However, fission in reduplication does not incur an INTEGRITY violation (see section 2.4.3), and coalescence does not take place. Thus, under the assumption that reduplicative feature TETU and feature

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

113

dissimilation incur the same surface faithfulness violations, reduplicative JETU incurs a subset of the total number of violations incurred by dissimilation. Consequently, dissimilation may imply the presence of feature JETU in reduplication, but not vice versa. Two languages mentioned in this chapter support one side of this prediction: the presence of feature dissimilation implies the presence of reduplicative JETU involving the same feature. Sanskrit aspirated and murmured segments dissimilate in roots, and are never copied faithfully into reduplicants (i.e. bases and reduplicants cannot both contain marked segments specified for [+SG]). Similarly, liquids in Yimas (Foley 1991; Odden 1994) dissimilate and are never copied faithfully into reduplicants (i.e. bases and reduplicants cannot both contain marked liquids). Support for the other side of the prediction comes from languages that do not exhibit dissimilation, but show reduplicative JETU (sometimes even leading to segments that are entirely unmarked - recall that dissimilation to the entirely unmarked is unattested). For instance, Alderete et al. (1999) analyze Tiibatulabal (Uto-Aztecan; Voegelin 1958) reduplication in which any copied onset consonant defaults to glottal stop, with unmarked place and manner feature specifications. Outside of reduplication, segments with marked place and manner can cooccur, as shown in the bases of ['li;.-bi:bi:win] 'to play jew's harp' (containing three labials) and [li;.-mi:hli:n] 'to hurt her' (containing two nasals). Further research must detennine whether the suggested implicational relation between reduplicative JETU and dissimilation is an accurate one. The discovery of languages in which marked feature dissimilation is found outside the domain of reduplication, but not in reduplicative JETU, would suggest that reduplicated words and unreduplicated words are subject to different faithfulness constraints holding over output segments (BR faithfulness and surface faithfulness). Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that dissimilation and reduplicative JETU are similar in important ways and often coexist within a language. Both are driven by a need to improve markedness, which can be achieved only because input-output faithfulness is satisfied due to fission of segments. This concludes the general introduction to dissimilation. I have argued that dissimilation is a way to improve markedness without loss of underlying information. The existential definition of faithfulness constraints ensures that dissimilation does not incur faithfulness violations. I now turn to case studies of Sanskrit (section 3.3) and Cuzco Quechua (section 3.4).

3.3 Case study: Sanskrit This section gives an analysis of two patterns in Classical Sanskrit. First, in a number of roots the location of a murmured feature specification is entirely predictable. In some previous accounts this was accounted for by feature

114

Existential Faithfulness

reassociation. Second, [h], aspirated segments, and murmured segments do not cooccur in roots. In previous analyses this was accounted for by means of the OCP or dissimilation alternations. Throughout this section I refer to these patterns descriptively as 'movement' and 'dissimilation.' I show that feature movement and dissimilation are most likely to take place when the segments involved are alike. In addition, this case study shows that surface faithfulness and 10 faithfulness constraints can prevent simultaneous movement of multiple feature specifications (cf. multiple feature dissimilation discussed in the previous section). This section also gives a brief comparison of the proposed Sanskrit analysis with previous accounts. The predictable location of murmur and some of the cooccurence facts can be explained by a single markedness requirement: laryngeally marked segments are banned in certain environments. I tum to this markedness requirement first. Section 3.3.2 focuses on murmur movement, known as 'throwback' in the Sanskrit literature. Murmur throwback is not required in certain environments (Bartholomae's Law). This issue is addressed in section 3.3.3. Section 3.3.4 discusses the laryngeal cooccurrence restrictions (Grassmann's Law).

3.3.1 Ban on laryngeally marked segments Sanskrit shows several laryngeal contrasts in stops and affricates. 1bese sounds can be voiceless, voiced, aspirated, or murmured (breathy voice). I will use the term 'stop' to refer to both oral stops and affricates. (20.)

Sanskrit consonant inventory voiceless

p

t

t

C

k

voiced

b

d

q,

voiceless aspirated

rJ'

h

h

kh

q,fi

J ch J6

S

~

~

n

It

Jl

voiced murmured

li

b

m

t

dfi

t

j

v

r

9

6

9

h g

115

Feature Movement and Dissimilation

Laryngeally marked segments cannot surface word-finally or before obstruents. In the examples in (21) below, they neutralize to unmarked plain voiceless stops. The forms in (22) show that the marked segments are allowed before sonorants. Data are from Whitney (1885, 1889), unless otherwise indicated.

(21. )

No marked laryngeal feature values word-finally or before obstruents -7 neutralization 'goodhearted' Isuhrdl suhlrt lagnimathl agnimat 'being near the fire' Ivirudfil 'obstruction' vimt Isvid+ syatil svetsyati 'sweat' (future) 'succeed' (future) Isa:dfi + syati/ sa:tsyati

(22.)

Marked laryngeal feature values are allowed before sonorant segments 'sweat' (aorist) Isvidl svidya:t 'sweat' (present) Isvidl svedate 'reached to' ldatl da/nuyat ba:dfiate 'oppress' (present) Iba:dfil pathyate Ipathl 'read' (passive) Ipathl 'read' (present) pathati

Consonants in all medial clusters are heterosyllabic, as evidenced by versification and reduplication (McCarthy and Prince 1986; Steriade 1997 and references quoted therein). Thus, the laryngeally marked stops in the forms below surface in coda. (23.)

Syllabification of stop-sonorant clusters periods) Isvidl svid.ya:t dagfi.nu.yat ldatl Ipathl path.ya.te

«(J boundaries

indicated by

'sweat' (aorist) 'reached to' 'read' (passive)

These data indicate that laryngeal neutralization does not affect segments in coda position, but rather segments not preceding sonorants. I attribute this behavior to a high-ranking markedness constraint LARREL, loosely based on constraints proposed in Steriade 1997. (24. )

LARREL A laryngeally marked obstruent (cluster) must release into a sonorant

116

Existential Faithfulness

In avoiding a violation of this constraint, laryngeally marked stops usually become plain voiceless. However, other repairs are also found. 'The feature value [+murmur] is preserved on another segment whenever possible, aspirated segments induce vowel epenthesis word-internally. This is summarized in the table below.

am

(25.)

Alternations of larynRealiv marked stops murmured stops throwback else neutralization epenthesis before obstruents aspirated stops neutralization word-finally voiced stops neutralization

The different repairs affecting aspirated and murmured segments suggest that murmur and aspiration are different features, and it reflects the fact that they differ phonetically (Ladefoged 1971; Ladefoged and Madieson 1996). I therefore assume the distinct features murmur and aspiration. Aspirated and murmured segments behave like a class with respect to cooccurrence restrictions: roots cannot contain more than one segment with a [+murmur] or [+aspiration] feature value. I refer to this class as [+SpreadGlottis]. I adopt Padgett's (1995) Feature Class Theory. Features are specified for class membership, and constraints can refer to laryngeal features as a class, to spread-glottis features as a class, or to each laryngeal feature individually. In their basic effect, feature classes replace nodes in Feature Geometry. IS The constraint LARREL must outrank faithfulness constraints on marked laryngeal features in order to drive neutralization. These faithfulness constraints are 3-IDENT[+lar], 3-IDENT[+SG], 3-IDENT[+murmur], 3-IDENT[+asp], 3-IDENT[+voice]. The tableaux below contain the faithfulness constraints on the individual features. (26.)

Neutralization of voiced stops Isuhrdl LARREL 3-IDENT f+voicel,n suhrd 1 2 " suhrt

IS

1995).

*!

*

: 3-IDENT I f+asol,n

: 3-IDENT I f+murmurl,n

I 1

I I

Although there are some differences between the two models (see Padgett

117

Feature Movement and Dissimilation (27.)

(28. )

Neutra1"lzatJon 0 f aSPirate d stops /agnimath/ LarRel (-ldent I+voicellO 1 agnimath * ! 2 fir agnimat Neutralization of murmured stops /virud 6/ LARREL 3-loENT [+voice1o 1 virudfi *! 2 w virut *

I I

3-loENT [+asP]IO

I I

I I

I I

3-loENT [+murmutlm

I

* 3-loENT [+asp]lo

I

I I

I

I

I

I

3-loENT [+murmur]JO

*

I now turn to preservation of murmur specifications in 'throwback.'

3.3.2 [+Munnur] movement In Sanskrit, a [+murmur] feature specification is not always lost when the stop with which it is undedyingly associated surfaces before an obstruent or word-finally. When an underlying murmured consonant is root-final, its murmur specification can be preserved on a root-initial voiced stop. Thus, in surface forms related to !bud6/ 'to wake' and Ibadfi/ 'to oppress' given below, [+murmur] is associated with the root-final segment when the following suffix starts with a sonorant, but with the root-initial segment when the suffix starts with an obstruent.

(29.)

Words containing the root Ibu~/ 'to wake' (root printed in bold) bod6ati present budfiyate passive bodfiayati causative hYbfiutsati bfiotsyati

desiderative future

Words containing the root Iba~/ 'to oppress' (root printed in bold) badfiate present badfiyate passive badliayati causative hYbfiutsati

desiderative

118

Existential Faithfulness

I propose that 'movement' takes place in the desiderative and future forms (among others) because it avoids laryngeally marked segments before obstruents, while preserving the marked feature in the surface form. Put differently, feature movement occurs because LARREL is satisfied without incurring a violation of 3-loENT[+murmur]. The basic schema for feature movement was laid out in section 3.1. The specific analysis of Sanskrit is illustrated in the following diagram: (30. )

Sanskrit feature movement (only relevant feature specifications present in the input are shown)

input:

output:

[-murmur] b

bli [+murmur]

[+murmur] u

u

cf

cf

s

u

s

u

Candidate 1 of tableau (31) embodies the faithful parse of the Ibudli+sul input. The feature specification [+murmur] surfaces before an obstruent and causes a fatal violation of LARREL. Candidate 2 repairs this violation by not preserving the [+murmur] value. By doing so, it fatally violates 3-IDENT[+murmur]. Candidate 3 is the optimal form. It avoids both of these violations, because the [+murmur] value is preserved on a segment that precedes a sonorant. Feature movement can take place because the fission and coalescence it involves are allowed. First, INTEGRITY is low-ranking. Second, the surface faithfulness constraint on murmur is low-ranking. This constraint is violated by the optimal candidate because the fissioned output segments are not identical with respect to their murmur values. (In this particular form, the surface constraint on place is also violated.) Third, coalescence resulting in a murmured segment is permitted in the optimal candidate because 10 faithfulness to [-murmur], which is relevant for the initial input segment, is low-ranking. To ensure that murmur throwback of candidate 3 is more harmonic than vowel epenthesis of candidate 4, all these violated constraints must be ranked lower than M-SEG.

119

Feature Movement and Dissimilation (31. )

Sanskrit feature movement b,udfi 2+su LAR 3-IDENT REL f+murml,,, 1

01