- 2 - Tobias Scheer EGG Brno DAY 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 25 CNRS 6039, Université de Nice July-August 2015 [email protected] What does that buy us?.......................................................................................................... 25 this handout and some of the references quoted at 1. Arguments from Cognitive Science missed..................................................................... 25 www.unice.fr/dsl/tobias.htm 2. What translation is good for............................................................................................. 25 3. Modular PIC..................................................................................................................... 28 4. Minimalism & Biolinguistics........................................................................................... 29 5. What it does not buy us: no look-back devices................................................................ 29 Introduction to Interface Theory 5.1. SPE and Chomsky (1973) ......................................................................................... 29 5.2. Derived Environment Effects.................................................................................... 31 5.3. Bracket Erasure ......................................................................................................... 32 5.4. Modification-inhibiting no look-back ....................................................................... 34 Milestones in interface thinking.............................................................................................. 3 DAY 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 36 DAY 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Things that are settled............................................................................................................ 36 Zoom in with an example: affix classes .................................................................................. 3 1. Morpho-syntax and melody are incommunicado............................................................. 36 1. The phenomenon ................................................................................................................ 3 2. Boundary impact is process-specific................................................................................ 38 2. Four analyses...................................................................................................................... 4 3. Morpho-syntax has no bearing on the content of phonological computation.................. 38 2.1. SPE.............................................................................................................................. 4 4. There are no boundaries inside morphemes..................................................................... 38 2.2. Lexical Phonology....................................................................................................... 5 5. There is no phonetic correlate of morpho-syntactic information..................................... 40 2.3. Halle & Vergnaud (1987)............................................................................................ 6 2.4. Kaye (1995)................................................................................................................. 7 DAY 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 41 3. intermodular argumentation (syntax = phonology).......................................................... 9 Modular standards for the lower interface (with phonetics) ............................................. 41 1. Spell-Out, post-phonological ........................................................................................... 41 2. Workings .......................................................................................................................... 42 DAY 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3. Effects............................................................................................................................... 44 Introduction to Cognitive Science and its application to language ................................... 11 1. Modularity........................................................................................................................ 11 2. Modularity in language .................................................................................................... 13 3. Zoom on the communication between morpho-syntax and phonology ........................... 14 4. How translation has always worked: Two Channels ....................................................... 15 5. Core properties of translation........................................................................................... 16 6. History of translation and its violation in generative phonology..................................... 17 6.1. SPE............................................................................................................................ 18 6.2. Prosodic Phonology................................................................................................... 18 6.3. OT.............................................................................................................................. 20 7. Outlook: One-Channel Translation .................................................................................. 22 7.1. Computational translation violates domain specificity ............................................. 22 7.2. Translation always involves a lexical access ............................................................ 23 - 3 - - 4 - Milestones in interface thinking b. phonological 1. stress placement (1) milestones class 1: stress-shifting: párent - parént-al (válid-valíd-ity, átom, atóm-ic) a. Inverted T class 2: stress-neutral: párent - pãrent-hood (válid-ness, átom-ise) Chomsky (1965: 15) 2. trisyllabic shortening b. inside-out interpretation (cyclicity) class 1: sane - san-ity, Christ - Christ-ian Chomsky et al (1956: 75) class 2: maiden - maiden-hood, wild - wild-ness c. interactionism 3. nasal assimilation Lexical Phonology class 1: im1-possible d. selective spell-out class 2: un2-predictable Halle & Vergnaud (1987) e. no look-back devices (4) affix ordering Chomsky (1973), many incarnations, today the PIC is actually not true Aronoff (1976), Aronoff & Sridhar (1983, 1987) a. patent-abíl2-ity1 DAY 1 b. develop-mént2-al1 c. organ-iz2-at-ion1 Zoom in with an example: affix classes d. un-2grammatic-al1-ity1 1. The phenomenon (5) affix classes a. a general phenomenon or merely a peculiarity of English? (2) class membership of English affixes b. English class 1 class 2 different lexical strata in the historical development of the language in- un- class 1: Romance -ity -ness class 2: Germanic -ic -less c. affix classes have a cross-linguistic reality -ian -hood Dutch, German, Malayalam (Dravidian), Basque, Dakota (native American) -ory -like confirm the English pattern: typically, affix classes correspond to the import of -ary -dom various strata of vocabulary in different historical periods of the language. -ion -ful d. overview: -ate -ship Booij (2000 [1996]:297) -al (adjective- -ed (adjectival) -y forming) -ing (noun- (6) empirical challenge: underapplication (noun-forming) forming) Affix class-based phenomena require the underapplication of phonology: a subset of the active phonology of the language must be precluded from applying to strings that were (3) diagnostics for class membership created by the attachment of a certain affix class. a. morphological: 1. affix ordering 2. Four analyses Siegel (1974) 2.1. SPE class 1 affixes occur closer to the stem than class 2 affixes (this is where their name comes from). (7) SPE cl1-cl1: atom-ic1-ity1, univers-al1-ity1 representational cl2-cl2: atom-less2-ness2, beauty-ful2-ness2, guard-ed2-ness2 a. class 1 = + cl1-cl2: univers-al1-ness2 class 2 = # cl2-cl1: * *atom-less2-ity1, *piti-less2-ity1, *guard-ed2-ity1 b. parent 2. bound stems parent+al class 1 affixes + bound stem: in-ert, in-trepid) parent#hood class 1 affixes + independent word: in-tolerable c. main stress rule class 2 affixes + bound stem: * *un-ert, *un-trepid Shift mail stress one syllable right upon the concatenation of each suffix. class 2 affixes + independent word: un-aware This rule applies only to strings that do not contain any #. - 5 - - 6 - d. general pattern 2.3. Halle & Vergnaud (1987) # is a rule-blocking boundary: rules are made sensitive to #. E.g. N assimilates to the place of a following obstruent if not followed by #. (13) Halle & Vergnaud (1987a): analysis of affix classes (8) underapplication a. univérs-al-ness b. govern-mént-al achieved by the reference of rule to (rule-blocking) boundaries. T T phon 2.2. Lexical Phonology class 2 U phon class 1 U (9) Lexical Phonology analysis of stress shift parent parént-al párent-hood class 1 V class 2 V lexicon parent parent parent level 1 concatenation — parent-al — stress párent parént-al párent x root x root assignment level 2 concatenation — — párent-hood spell-out spell-out rule application — — — [root - class