Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint Based Framework by Cheryl Cydney Zoll B.A. Harvard University 1985 M.A. Brandeis University 1992 M.A. University of California, Berkeley 1994 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair Professor Larry Hyman Professor Armin Mcslcr Professor Alan Timberlake 1 9 9 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The dissertation of Cheryl Cydney Zoll is approved: _______________ M * ? u , m b Chair r \ Date rko^/3, /??£ 0ate / /' / l a y 2 o , Date c j U f u £ k . ... ... f ? m / 9 f 6 Date University of California, Berkeley 1996 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint Based Framework © 1996 by Cheryl Cydney Zoll Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint Based Framework by Cheryl Cydney Zoll Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair This dissertation proposes a new model of subsegmental phonology within Optimality Theory that differs from standard Autosegmental Phonology both in its limited use of representational distinctions and in the form of the grammar to which the representations submit. The research focuses particularly on phonological units which are invisible to parsing in certain contexts, such as floating features and ghost segments, and demonstrates that the current understanding of segmental representation does not adequately characterize the full range of subsegmental phenomena found cross- linguistically. I propose instead an analysis in the framework of Optimality Theory in which the grammar derives the variety of surface phenomena from a single underlying representation. The typology which results from this analysis correctly classifies the entire range of behavior associated with subminimal phonological units while allowing a unique characterization of the immunity of defective segments from the demands of regular parsing. This dissertation thus both enlarges the empirical foundation on which an adequate theory of segment structure must be based, and in developing such an account sheds new light on classic problems of subsegmental parsing. 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T a b le o f C o n te n t s 1. THE LIMITS OF REPRESENTATION I . I Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 A utosegmental p h o n o l o g y .................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 O s t e n s ib l e differences b e t w e e n s e g m e n t s a n d subsegments ....................................................................9 1.3.1 Independent properties ........................................................................ 14 1.3.2 One possible approach .................................................................................................................................18 1.3.3 Dependent features and independent segments ........................................................................................21 1.4 A unified representation for a ll subsegm ents ......................................................................................................25 1.4. / Latent segments lack a root node...... .....................................................................................................25 1.4.2 Problems with previous proposals..........................................................................................................29 1.4.2.1 Overview................................................................................................................................................... 29 1.4.2.2 Exlramctricalily ........................................................................................................................................ 30 1.4.2.3 The X-slot ................................................................................................................................................. 34 1.4.2.4 The mora ................................................................................................................................................... 37 1.4.2.5 Defective root node ................................................................................................................................... 38 1.5 S u m m a r y o f t h e c h a p t e r ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 2. OPTIMALITY: THEORY AND PRACTICE 2 .1 The Rudiments of O ptim ality Theory ............................................................................................................................44 2.2 Faithfulness and Correspondence .................................................................................................................................52 2.3 Form al C larity and M ultiple V iolation ....................................................................................................................69 2.4 C onstraints vs. rules: a dem onstration ....................................................................................................................72 2.4.1 Kukuya tone melodies................................................................................................................................... 72 2.4.2 Rule based account of Kukuya ....................................................................................................................75 2.5 Proposal in Optim ality T heory ....................................................................................................................................... 81 2.5.1 Basic association ...........................................................................................................................................81 2.5.2 Contour Licensing........................................................................................................................................ 83 2.5.3 Spreading asymmetry ................................................................................................................................... 93 2.5.4 Summary of Kukuya..................................................................................................................................... 94 2.5.5 A Note about Mende ..................................................................................................................................... 94 3. THE GENERAL APPROACH: SIMPLE CASES AND ALIGN 3.1 Align ......................................................................................................................................................................95 3.1.1 A problem with AUGN ..................................................................................................................................99 3.1.2 Mode of Violation......................................................................................................... 100 3.1.3 No-Intervening...........................................................................................................................................104 3.2 INOR....................................................................................................................................................................................................108 3.2. / The analysis ................................................................................................................................................. HO 3.2.2 Can representational distinctions alone do the trick? ........................................................................ 116 3.3 S u m m a r y .................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 *• iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4. CONFLICTING DIRECTIONALITY 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 124 4 .2 C o n f l ic t in g directionality ................................................................................................................................................124 4.3 A n a l y s is ..........................................................................................................................................................................................126 4 .4 Im p l ic a t io n fo r underspecification ..............................................................................................................................132 4.5 F o r m a l s t a t e m e n t o f l ic e n s in g : ......................................................................................................................................135