CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS 9.1 Introduction This chapter has two goals. The first is to discuss how the aims of this dissertation have been met (§9.2). The second is to re-evaluate the notion of markedness in the light of the results of the preceding chapters (§9.3). 9.2 Aims This dissertation started with an informal statement of two leading ideas, repeated in (1). (1) Leading Ideas (a) Markedness relations between categories may be ignored, but never reversed. (b) The more marked an element is, the greater the pressure to preserve it. Evidence for (1a) was shown to come from systems in which different sonority categories are treated the same for stress purposes (ch.3, ch.4). For example, stress placement in Gujarati is sensitive to sonority distinctions: stress deviates from its default penult position if doing so will allow it to fall on a highly sonorous low vowel: e.g. [tád=et5] ‘recently’, [sinemá] ‘movie theatre’ (ch.3§3.2). However, while stress favours low vowels over all other types, it treats mid and high vowels in exactly the same way: stress does not avoid a penult high vowel for a mid vowel (e.g. [t6hok5ío] ‘girls’, *[t6hók5io]), or avoid a mid vowel for a high vowel (e.g. [t6umÛóte5] ‘74’, *[t6úmÛote5]). In other words, the sonority categories ‘mid peripheral vowel’ and ‘high peripheral vowel’ are conflated for stress purposes in Gujarati. This contrasts with a stress system like Nganasan’s, where stress avoids the default penult position if it contains a high vowel: K ([kóntuÑa] ‘carries’, *[kontúÑa], cf Gujarati [t6 ok5ío]). Evidence for (1b) was shown to come from processes for which marked elements are exempt. For example, chapter 6 provided examples from neutralization in languages like Yamphu (Rutgers 1998). In Yamphu, a general process of Place of Articulation neutralization in syllable codas forces /t/ to surface as a glottal stop: /namÛit/ → [namÛi] ‘daughter-in-law’, cf [namÛid-æ] {instrumental}, /sitÛ-ma/ → [sima] ‘to hit’, cf [sitÛ-a] ‘hit+past’. However, the more marked PoA values ‘labial’ and ‘dorsal’ are exempt from this attrition: e.g. [khap] ‘language’, *[kha], [kep-ma] ‘to stick’; [ælik] ‘bendy’, [khaÛk- pa] ‘scrape one’s throat’. In other words, greater preservation is afforded to the marked PoA values in Yamphu, preventing them from undergoing an otherwise general process. 484 The formal expression of markedness – ch.9 Further evidence for (1b) comes from assimilation (ch.7). While coronals assimilate in Catalan, labials and dorsals do not: /son poks/ → [som poks] ‘they are few’, cf /som dos/ → [som dos] ‘we are two’, [aÚ tontu] ‘stupid year’, [ti1 pres] ‘I am in a hurry’. Again, the marked elements are preserved, exempting them from an otherwise general process. Evidence for both (1a) and (1b) was argued to be found in coalescence (ch.8). In 3aOL IRU H[DPSOH DGMDFHQW Fonsonants had to fuse to form geminates. When dorsals and coronals fused, the output element retained the more marked dorsal feature: /sak-6-ti/ → [sakÛhi], *[satÛhi], *[sacÛhi] ‘be able to {aorist+3p.sg.}. This shows that there is greater pressure to preserve the marked element in this competition, so providing evidence for (1b). ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH IXVLQJ RI ODELDOV DQG FRURQDOV LQ 3aOL SURGXFHV D VHJPHQW ZLWK WKH less marked coronal Place of Articulation: e.g. /lubh-ta/ → [ludÛha] ‘long for {participle}’, *[lubÛha]. Chapter 8 argued that the coronal PoA survives because labials and coronals are HTXDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ WHUPV RI SUHVHUYDWLRQ LQ 3aOL 6R XQOLNH GRUVDOV WKH RXWSXW RI Eh-t/ could be either a labial *[bÛh] or coronal [dÛh] and the preservation requirements of the language would be met. In this sense, the mappings /bh-t/ → *[bÛh] and /bh-t/ → [dÛh] are FRQIODWHGWKH\ DUH WUHDWHG LQ H[DFWO\ WKH VDPH ZD\ LQ 3 aOL %HFDXVH VXUYLYDO RI HLWKHU WKH labial or coronal PoA is countenanced, the choice between the two falls to markedness constraints; accordingly, the least marked (coronal) PoA is favoured. Now that evidence for the leading ideas has been reviewed informally, I will turn to a discussion of how the leading ideas are formally implemented. Since a detailed summary of the theoretical proposals has been provided at the end of each previous chapter, the aim of the following subsections is to provide a brief synopsis of the theoretical proposals as they relate to the leading ideas in (1). See the cross-references provided below for more detailed discussion. 9.2.1 Markedness constraints Scale-referring markedness constraints have two tasks: (i) to formally encode hierarchical relations between scale elements and (ii) to allow category conflation. Chapter 3 argued that both (i) and (ii) could be achieved if constraints refer stringently to sets of elements and are freely rankable. An example of the type of constraints advocated here is provided in (3); the constraints refer to the partial vowel sonority scale in (2). The element ∆Ft refers to the head of a foot. (2) (Partial) vowel sonority scale | 〉 i, u 〉 e, o 〉 a | (3) *∆Ft/{}, *∆Ft/{,i/u}, *∆Ft/{,i/u, e/o}, *∆Ft/{, i/u, e/o, a} As an example, the constraint *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} is violated by a stressed syllable that contains a vowel of equal or less sonority than the mid vowels [e o]. For example, [pítk] incurs two violations of this constraint. 485 Paul de Lacy The constraints implement the hierarchy expressed by the scale in (2). More precisely, the constraints prevent reversal of the scale in (2). For example, low vowels are more desirable than mid vowels for stress purposes in Gujarati, as discussed above. This was implemented by ranking the constraint *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} above the constraint that requires penult stress (ALIGNFTR) in ch.3. (4) /tad=et5/ *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} ALIGNFTR (a) ta(d=ét5) *! / (b) (tád=e)t5) * However, mid vowels can never attract stress away from low vowels. For this to happen, there would have to be some constraint that assigned a violation to stressed low vowels but not to stressed mid vowels. As shown in quasi-tableau (5), there is no such constraint. While there is a constraint that favours [á] over [é] (i.e. *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o}), there is no constraint that does the opposite. (5) *∆Ft/{} *∆Ft/{,i/u} *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o,a} (a) # * * * * (b) í * * * (c) é * * (d) á * Because [é] incurs a proper subset of the violations of [á], the ranking of the constraints will make no difference to the relative markedness of [é] and [á] – the former can never be preferred over the latter in terms of these constraints. However, there are constraints that treat the two categories – i.e. mid and low vowels – in the same way. This is crucial for the competition between mid and high vowels in Gujarati. As discussed above, the two categories are conflated for stress purposes. This follows if all constraints that distinguish the two – i.e. *∆Ft/{,i/u} – are ‘inactive’ for stress, which in this case means ‘ranked below ALIGNFTR’. This situation is illustrated in tableau (6). (6) h /t6 ok5io/ *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} ALIGNFTR *∆Ft/{,i/u} (a) (t6hók5i)o * *! / (b) t6hok(5ío) * * The only constraint that favours stressed mid vowels over stressed high vowels is *∆Ft/{,i/u}. Because it is ranked below ALIGNFTR, its violations are inconsequential in determining the winner for stress. 486 The formal expression of markedness – ch.9 In this ranking, it is crucial that *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} assigns exactly the same violations to both (a) and (b). This is how conflation is formally implemented – through the assignment of equal violations. By doing so, *∆Ft/{,i/u,e/o} makes no decision between the two candidates; this allows ALIGNFTR to make the crucial decision, favouring the candidate with stress in the default position. Chapter 3 provided an in-depth discussion of why stringent form is crucial in producing conflation. • Structural elements The other major markedness-related theoretical proposal is that certain scales can combine with structural elements to form constraints. For example, the constraints in (3) are combined with the structural element ‘stressed syllable’. This was argued to be only one of many possible structural elements. In fact, scales like the sonority hierarchy were argued to combine with both heads and non-heads of all prosodic levels. Detailed arguments for this proposal were provided in chapter 4. 9.2.2 Faithfulness constraints Faithfulness constraints must (i) encode the proposal that more marked elements can be subject to greater preservation and (ii) allow for faithfulness conflation. Chapters 6- 8 argued that both (i) and (ii) could be achieved if faithfulness constraints referred to contiguous sets of scale elements and always preserved the most marked element. For example, the faithfulness constraints for the Place of Articulation scale in (7) are provided in (8). (7) Place of Articulation scale | dorsal 〉 labial 〉 coronal 〉 glottal | (8) Place of Articulation (PoA) faithfulness constraints • x corresponds to x' IDENT{dorsal} If x is dorsal, then x' has the same PoA as x. IDENT{dors,lab} If x is dorsal or labial, then x' has the same PoA as x. IDENT{dors,lab,cor} If x is dorsal, labial, or coronal, then x' has the same PoA as x. IDENT{dors,lab,cor,gl} If x has any PoA, then x' has the same PoA as x. 7KH H[DPSOH RI 3aOL FRDOHVFHQFH PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ ZLOO EH XVHG WR illustrate the two major properties of the ‘marked-faithfulness’ constraints in (8). • Marked-faithfulness When dorsals and coronals coalesce in 3aOL WKH UHVXOW LV D GRUVDOHJ VD k-6-ti/ → [sakÛhi], *[sathÛi].