Class 5: Faithfulness and alternations (part 2) Adam Albright ([email protected]) LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky Announcements I Two resources posted in the ‘background’ I If you are taking this class for credit… I Option 1: assigment 1 feedback posted on Canvas, assignment 2 due next Monday by PDF on Canvas I Option 2: finding a topic for the short squib I Today: continue discussion of faithfulness constraints and alternations Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 1/40 Picking up from last time Which consonant deletes in CC cluster simplification? I Structural privilege I Onset C’s, word-initial C’s I Positional faithfulness = less likely to delete I Perceptual privilege I C/ V > C/ # > C/ C I Further to the left = better cued, less likely to delete I Continuing the argument for perceptual privilege I Jóola: C1 deletion even when both consonants are codas I Jóola: Deletion when both consonants are onsets I More generally: explaining divergent final CC# outcomes across languages Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 2/40 Shizuoka Japanese emphatic adjectives Adjective Emphatic Gloss Adjective Emphatic Gloss a. hade hande ‘showy’ m. kitanai kitːanai ‘dirty’ b. ozoi onzoi ‘terrible’ n. kusai kusːai ‘stinky’ c. jowai joɴwai ‘weak’ o. ikai ikːai ‘big’ d. hajai haɴjai ‘fast’ p. zonzai zoːnzai ‘impolite’ e. kaɾai kaɴɾai ‘spicy’ q. kandaɾui kaːndaɾui ‘languid’ f. nagai naŋgai ‘long’ r. onzokutai oːnzokutai ‘ugly’ g. kanaʃiː kanːaʃiː ‘sad’ s. supːai suːpːai ‘sour’ h. amai amːai ‘sweet’ t. okːanai oːkːanai ‘scary’ i. katai katːai ‘hard’ u. o͡ɪʃiː o͡ːɪʃiː ‘delicious’ j. osoi osːoi ‘slow’ v. kiːɾoi kiːɴɾoi ‘yellow’ k. takai takːai ‘high’ w. toːtoi toːtːoi respectable l. atsui atːsui ‘hot’ Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 3/40 Shizuoka Japanese emphatic adjectives I Three strategies for emphatic adjective formation I Lengthen consonant: kitanai ! kitːanai I Lengthen vowel: supːai ! suːpːai I Insert nasal C: hade ! hande I Choice of strategy is partially determined by general phonological restrictions I No voiced geminates: hade 6! hadːe I No ‘overlong’ consonants: supːai 6! supːːai I However, phonological restrictions underdetermine the choice I Why kitanai ! kitːanai, not *kiːtanai? I Why hade ! hande, not *haːde? I Priority: certain changes favored over others Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 4/40 OT is good at this! 1. Lengthen the consonant I Unless it’s already a geminate or it’s not a possible geminate, in which case… 2. Insert a nasal I Unless there’s already NC or Cː, in which case… 3. Lengthen the vowel These preferences follow from the ranking of the relevant markedness and faithfulness constraints. (Working this out is the purpose of assignment 2.) Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 5/40 Maybe too good… Another process we could easily have described 1. Lengthen the vowel I Unless it’s already long, in which case… 2. Insert a nasal I Unless there’s already NC or Cː, in which case… 3. Lengthen the consonant (In actuality this never proves necessary in native words, because there are no VːN syllables) Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 6/40 Shizuoka emphatic adjectives I Generalization: lowest sonority change that’s consistent with phonological requirements I obstruent lengthening > nasal > vowel lengthening I ‘Least conspicuous change’ I Is there anything significant about this? Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 7/40 The general question I Why do languages prefer one repair over another? I A prior question: how do we know that they do? I Alternations: compare morphologically related outputs (allomorphs) I German voicing alternations Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːbə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːpjən ‘principle’ liːt liːdɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːtə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡə ‘war’ blɪk blɪkə ‘glance’ braːf braːvə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːfə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪzə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪsə ‘track’ I Contrast: stem-final obstruent voicing is unpredictable before vowels (contrastive) I Contextual neutralization: only voiceless word-finally I Loanword adaptation: compare source and loan form I Cantonese (Silverman, 1992; Yip, 1993) English Cantonese adaptation Gloss sæləd saː55løt35 salad kʰaːd kʰaːt55 card Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 8/40 The P-Map hypothesis (Steriade, 2001) Conjecture: faithfulness favors perceptually indistinct changes I Ident(big change) ≫ Ident(smaller change) I Max(well cued consonant) ≫ Max(poorly cued consonant) I Dep(well cued consonant) ≫ Dep(poorly cued consonant) NB: it’s not actually clear whether we’d expect a change with morphological function, such as emphatic adjective formation, to favor less perceptually salient or more perceptually salient change (Löfstedt, 2010). We’ll side-step this question in the discussion that follows by focusing on phonologically motivated changes. Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 9/40 Epenthesis Recall the problem posed by epenthesis: I We were interested in epenthetic consonants under the idea that they might tell us something about the relative markedness of different place features, since Ident doesn’t differentiate /aɪ/ Ident(place) *#V *Dors *Cor *Glottal a. aɪ *! W L b. kaɪ *! W L c. taɪ *! W L + d. ʔaɪ * I Our hopes for a cross-linguistically valid ranking of general place markedness constraints were dashed by discrepancies in inventories and contextual neutralizations I However, epenthetic segments do show a greater degree of consistency Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 10/40 Initial epenthesis German (Indo-European, Germany) /aʊf/ [ʔaʊf] ‘on’ /aɪn/ [ʔaɪn] ‘one’ /ɛkə/ [ˈʔɛkə] ‘corner’ /oft/ [ʔoft] ‘often’ /ideː/ [ʔiˈdeː] ‘idea’ I Epenthesis applies to all V-initial roots, even in the middle of a word, which can make it hard to determine whether it’s underlying or epenthetic ([ˈʃnaps.ʔiˌdeː] ‘stupid idea that you have when you’ve drunk too much schnapps’) I Epenthesis can depend on speech rate, position in phrase, and vowel quality (see Pompino-Marschall and Żygis 2010) I German also has [ʔ] epenthesis in VV sequences when V2 is stressed ([ka.ˈʔo.tiʃ] ‘chaotic’), but not stressless ([ˈka.os] ‘chaos’) I Cross-linguistically Blevins (2008): C epenthesis at phrase edges is usually [ʔ], occasionally [h] (more often finally than initially) Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 11/40 Favoring [ʔ] I P-Map approach: ∆(V∼ʔV) < ∆(V∼pV, ∆(V∼tV)), ∆(V∼kV), ∆(V∼hV), ∆(V∼jV), etc. I Stops at oral places introduce CV formant transitions, ʔ does not I Glide introduces distinct formant target, large CV transitions to vowels other than [i] I Among glottals, ʔ has fewer internal cues than h (i.e., none), so most like silence of word edge I Faithfulness hierarchy I Dep(oral stop)/# V ≫ Dep(h)/# V ≫ Dep(ʔ)/# V I Faithfulness constraints must care about quality of the segment and context, since both determine perceptual distance to Æ Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 12/40 Favoring [ʔ] [pa] [ha] [ta] [ja] [ka] [ʔa] Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 13/40 Intervocalic epenthesis Lou (Eastern Admiralty Islands branch of Malayo-Polynesian, Papua New Guinea; data from Blust 1998, cited in Blevins, 2008) I “Rising sonority” VV sequences repaired with epenthetic glides I Rising sonority = higher V + lower V /tia-n/ [tijan] ‘his/her abdomen’ /kea/ [keja] ‘swim’ /moloa-n/ [molowan] ‘his/her shadow/spirit’ /suep/ [suwep] ‘digging stick’ I “Falling sonority” VV sequences do not I Falling sonority = lower V + higher V /wei-n golom/ [weiŋgolom] ‘your saliva’ /mween/ [mwεεn] ‘man, male’ /kapeun/ [kaβeun] ‘bitter’ Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 14/40 Dep/V V I Between identical V’s: no change in formants, [ʔ] is predicted to be favored I Higher V + lower V I Intuitively: iV, uV transitions very similar to jV, wV I All have rising F1 I iV, jV: falling F2 (to varying degrees) I uV, wV: rising F2, F3 I Rankings reflect relative perceptual similarity I ≫ Dep(j)/Vi Vi Dep(ʔ)/Vi Vi (except maybe i i, though *ji may block) I Dep(ʔ)/i V ≫ Dep(j)/i V I Height of V1 I ∆(aV∼ajV) > ∆(eV∼ejV) > ∆(iV∼ijV) I Large excursion > small excursion I Asymmetrical implication: glide epenthesis in /ea/ implies epenthesis in /ia/ Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 15/40 Epenthesis in a few other contexts I NC, e.g., Latin I /suːm-s-iː/ ! [suːmpsiː] ‘take-prt-1sg’ I /suːm-t-us/ ! [suːmptus] ‘take-ppl’ I NL, e.g., in English I Historically: thimble I Synchronic variation: family [fæmli] ∼ [fæmbli] I ‘Shielding’: /VNV/ ! VndV, VdnV, VdndV I ‘Excrescent stops’: epenthesis favors a stop at same place of articulation as preceding nasal, and same voicing as following segment I Voiced stops are not the least marked segments in any global sense (i.e., can’t posit *ʔ ≫ *voiced stop) I But they are the most similar to nasals Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 16/40 The upshot I Epenthesis in different contexts motivated by different markedness constraints I Epenthetic C depends on the contexts I In all(?) cases, the C that is favored is the one that is most similar to the surrounding segments I Consistent with the P-Map hypothesis: faithfulness constraints penalizing perceptually more salient changes ≫ those penalizing less salient changes Perceptual asymmetries: The P-Map hypothesis References 17/40 Inverted deletions ‘Intrusive consonants’ I [r]: some dialects of British English, New England American English,