Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The phonological dimension of grammatical markedness
(USC Thesis Other)
The phonological dimension of grammatical markedness
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE PHONOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF GRAMMATICAL MARKEDNESS
by
Cristian Iscrulescu
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(LINGUISTICS)
December 2006
Copyright 2006 Cristian Iscrulescu
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Having completed this dissertation, it is time to take a moment and thank those
people who have offered me help and support during my years at USC. First and
foremost, my gratitude goes to my long time advisor and committee chair, Rachel
Walker. She offered her constant support in the pursuit of my research project and,
through countless meetings and thorough revisions of the material, offered
numerous suggestions and critical advice. Rachel has been a mentor in the true
sense of the word. Not only did she patiently discuss with me the successive
versions of the research hypothesis, but also encouraged me to put things into
perspective and always think of further developments and implications of the
theory. For all this, I am deeply grateful to her.
Warm thanks go to the other committee members. I benefited from Ania
Łubowicz’s insights into the nature of the morphology-phonology interface, Mario
Saltarelli offered me an encyclopedic perspective of Romance morphology and
phonology, and Elliott Moreton (currently at the University of North Carolina)
patiently went over my handouts and stimulated me with challenging questions.
A special thanks to Jack Hawkins (now at Cambridge University) who was a
member of my Ph.D. screening committee and introduced me to the field of
linguistic typology.
Thanks are also due to a number of special people at USC’s Linguistics
Department from the interaction with whom I gained what I hope to be a better
iii
understanding of the main issues in contemporary linguistics: Hagit Borer (my first
academic advisor, a wonderful instructor and a model researcher), Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, Dani Byrd, Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, Todd Haskell, Elsi Kaiser and
Roumi Pancheva, to mention only a few. I am indebted and thankful to many of
my fellow graduate students at USC: Asier Alzacar, Agnieszka Lazorczyk, Bella
Feng, Rebeka Campos, Michal Martinez and Carolina Gonzalez, who have helped
me over the years. I am also grateful to the audience of USC’s PhonLunch group,
an ideal forum for discussion and stimulating ideas where I have had the chance to
present parts of the dissertation. Same thanks go to linguists who gave me
feedback on my work at various stages: Armin Mester, Keren Rice, John
McCarthy, Mike Hammond, Joe Pater, Donca Steriade and Martin Haspelmath, to
mention only a few.
Warm thanks to the staff of the Linguistics Department (Joyce Perez,
Frankie Hayduk and Karma Dolma), from whose availability and help I have
benefited during my stay at USC.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and friends,
whose patience and moral support have surrounded me over the years.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2
GRAMMATICAL AND PHONOLOGICAL MARKEDNESS.......................24
0. Introduction..................................................................................................... 24
1. Criteria for grammatical markedness...............................................................25
1.1 Structural coding........................................................................................25
1.2 Frequency...................................................................................................29
1.2.1 The failure of the iconicity approach
to grammatical markedness............................................................29
1.2.2 Markedness as a consequence of economy.....................................31
1.2.3 Markedness reversals as a consequence of frequency effects.........39
2. Towards a correlation between inflectional markedness
and phonology: size........................................................................................42
3. Criteria for phonological markedness..............................................................53
3.1 Phonological markedness as complexity..................................................54
3.2 Markedness as (non-)occurrence in inventories.......................................60
3.3 Summary: grammatical and phonological markedness............................63
4. Frequency of occurrence and phonological markedness.................................65
4.1. Open vs. closed class categories..............................................................65
4.2. Roots vs. affixes.......................................................................................67
5. The functional grounding of Marked in the Marked Effects...........................70
5.1 Production: MIM and form minimization..................................................72
5.2 Perception, retrieval and acquisition..........................................................76
5.3 The locus and emergence of MIM effects.................................................83
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................90
CHAPTER 3
MODELING MARKEDNESS IN OPTIMALITY THEORY..........................92
0. Introduction.....................................................................................................92
1. Grammatical markedness and Optimality Theory..........................................93
1.1 Functional grounding of OT constraints...................................................94
v
2. Licensing........................................................................................................98
2.1 Positional faithfulness...........................................................................101
2.2 Positional markedness...........................................................................102
3. Positive licensing in privileged positions.....................................................106
4. Licensing of marked phonological structure in marked categories..............109
5. The Marked in the Marked Schema..............................................................130
5.1 The emergence of the Marked in the Marked Schema..........................130
5.2 Factorial typology..................................................................................134
6. Summary.......................................................................................................137
CHAPTER 4
MARKED METRICAL STRUCTURE IN OLD SAXON.............................139
0. Introduction..................................................................................................139
1. Data and descriptive generalizations............................................................140
2. Uneven trochees as marked prosodic structure............................................149
3. Analysis........................................................................................................152
4. Discussion.....................................................................................................159
4.1 An apparent counterexample: uneven trochees
in the unmarked category.....................................................................159
4.2 Alternative accounts..............................................................................160
4.2.1 MIM with licensing constraints for individual case values.........160
4.2.2 Positional Faithfulness..................................................................165
5. Summary.......................................................................................................169
CHAPTER 5
SEGMENTAL MARKEDNESS IN ROMANIAN..........................................171
0. Introduction..................................................................................................171
1. Number expression in Romanian nominal morphology..............................174
1.1 Data.......................................................................................................175
1.2 Evidence for underlying /u/ in masculines and neuters........................177
1.2.1 Lexicon optimization...................................................................177
1.2.2 Morphological exponence in nominal inflection.........................179
1.2.3 Phonotactic evidence for underlying /u/......................................182
1.2.4 Evidence from loanwords............................................................186
1.3 Romanian Plural morphology...............................................................189
1.3.1 Restrictions on the distribution of high vowels in Romanian......189
1.3.2 Analysis........................................................................................191
1.3.2.1 The Sonority Hierarchy and the distribution of theme
vowels..............................................................................191
1.3.2.2 High vowel deletion in the Singular.................................193
1.3.2.3 Secondary articulation in the Plural..................................195
1.3.2.4 Licensing marked phonological structure in the Plural....198
1.3.2.5 Palatalized consonants as
marked phonological structure........................................202
vi
1.3.2.6 The emergence of the Marked in the Marked Schema.....204
2. Number expression in dialects of Romanian.................................................208
2.1 North-Western Transylvanian...............................................................208
2.2 Aromanian.............................................................................................212
3. Towards a factorial typology of Number marking in Romance....................214
4. An alternative approach: Morpheme Realization..........................................225
5. Summary........................................................................................................229
CHAPTER 6
PHONOTACTIC MARKEDNESS IN MAYAK.............................................232
0. Introduction...................................................................................................232
1. Background data on Mayak phonology and morphology.............................233
1.1 The sound system and prosody of Mayak..............................................233
1.2 Morpho-phonological processes................................................,...........236
2. Lenition and phonological markedness.........................................................241
3. Analysis.........................................................................................................245
3.1 Relevant constraints...............................................................................245
3.2 Inputs with intervocalic stops................................................................246
3.3 Inputs with intervocalic fricatives or approximants..............................248
3.4 Interactions with allophonic variation...................................................249
4. Residual issues..............................................................................................255
4.1 The representation of the Passive suffix.................................................255
4.2 An alternative analysis: Positional Faithfulness.....................................258
5. Summary.......................................................................................................261
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUDING REMARKS.............................................................................263
1. Empirical coverage and predictions.............................................................265
2. Issues for further research............................................................................280
REFERENCES....................................................................................................283
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: C
1
, C
2
» C
3
..............................................................................................15
Table 2: Overt versus null inflection in Number...................................................26
Table 3: Frequencies of occurrence of Number category values...........................34
Table 4: Frequencies of occurrence of Case category values................................35
Table 5: Frequencies of occurrence of Person category values.............................35
Table 6: Frequencies of occurrence of Voice category values..............................35
Table 7: Frequencies of occurrence of Tense category values..............................35
Table 8: Marked versus unmarked oppositions.....................................................53
Table 9: Unmarked versus marked consonant features..........................................61
Table 10: IDENT[onset seg] » *LABIAL » IDENT[seg]............................................102
Table 11: *LABIAL(CODA) » IDENT[seg] » *LABIAL.............................................104
Table 12: Plain and palatalized consonants in Romanian Number.......................127
Table 13: Assessment of LICENSE(C
j
, PLURAL)...................................................127
Table 14: Applications of the MIM Schema.........................................................131
Table 15: Case marking in u-stem nouns (Singular).............................................145
Table16: Old Saxon u-stem paradigms.................................................................148
Table 17: MAX-IO » *(HL) (affix retention in Oblique forms)............................153
Table 18: LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO (HL prohibited in the Nominative)....156
Table 19: LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Nominative)........................157
Table 20: LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Oblique)..............................157
Table 21: LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *HL (Nominative)...........................158
viii
Table 22: LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Oblique)..............................158
Table 23: LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M..................................163
Table 24: LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M (Dative)....................164
Table 25: LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M (Instrumental)..........164
Table 26: Case marking in u-stem nouns (Singular).............................................165
Table 27: *(HL) » MAX-IO (Nominative deletion)...............................................167
Table 28: MAX-IO
O
» *(HL) » MAX-IO » *PK/hi.................................................168
Table 29: The vocalic ending [u] surfacing before consonantal suffixes.............179
Table 30: The realization of French loanwords in the indefinite form (with [u]
as epenthetic).........................................................................................187
Table 31: The definite form of French loans........................................................187
Table 32: Romanian vowel chart..........................................................................190
Table 33: *PK/[hi] » MAX-IO (general deletion of high vowels).........................194
Table 34: SONCON » *PK/[hi] (high vowels retained avoiding illicit coda).........194
Table 35: MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO (coalescence in the Plural).......................196
Table 36: MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO (coalescence wrongly predicted in the
Singular)..............................................................................................197
Table 37: Frequencies of occurrence of Number category values........................200
Table 38: LICENSE (C
Sec.
, PL.) » MAX-IO (no coalescence in the Singular).........201
Table 39: Summary rankings for Romanian.........................................................204
Table 40: MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
(secondary articulation preferred to deletion)..........205
Table 41: *C
Sec.
» IDENT[hi] (minimal occurrence of secondary articulations)....206
Table 42: *PK/[hi], MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)...................................211
ix
Table 43: *PK/[hi], MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)....................................211
Table 44: MAX-IO, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) »*PK/[hi], *C
Sec.
.....................................213
Table 45: MAX-IO, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) »*PK/[hi] » *C
Sec.
...................................213
Table 46: Constraint rankings for Romanian dialects...........................................215
Table 47: *PK/[hi] » LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH (MAX/DEP-IO) » *C
Sec.
..........219
Table 48: MAX-ROOT-IO, SONCON » *PK/[hi] » FAITH (MAX/DEP-IO)..............220
Table 49: Factorial typology with Morpheme Realization...................................229
Table 50: Mayak consonants.................................................................................234
Table 51: IDENT[cont] » *VTV (no lenition in the Passive).................................247
Table 52: LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » IDENT[cont] (lenition in the Active)..............247
Table 53: Active: /maa - r
Act.
/ → [/maa r]
Act.
....................................................248
Table 54: Passive: /maa - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
....................................................249
Table 55: LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * (lenition in the Active).............................252
Table 56: LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * (no lenition in the Passive).......................252
Table 57: LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * , IDENT[cont]..............................................253
Table 58: * » IDENT[cont] (no fricatives in the Passive).....................................253
Table 59: Passive: /maat - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
.....................................................258
Table 60: Active: /maat - r
Act.
/ → [maa - r]
Act.
.....................................................259
Table 61: Active: /maa - r
Act.
/ → [maa r]
Act.
.....................................................259
Table 62: Passive: /maa - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
....................................................259
x
Table 63: The distribution of Tiwi tense prefixes.................................................270
Table 64: Singular: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back,
+round]................................................................................................274
Table 65: Plural: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back,
+round]................................................................................................274
Table 66: Plural: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back, +round]
(failed ranking).......................................................................................275
Table 67: Stems with underlying /u/IDENT[rd] » LICENSE(y,PLURAL) »
» IDENT[bk] » *y..................................................................................276
Table 68: Stems with underlying /y/ IDENT[rd] » LICENSE(y,PLURAL) »
» IDENT[bk] » *y................................................................................277
Table 69: The distribution of M and M’...............................................................278
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Morphological and Phonological Structure............................................10
Figure 2: Licensing of marked phonological material in the marked category.....19
Figure 3: Prosodic Hierarchy.................................................................................57
Figure 4: Licensing of marked phonological material in the marked category...115
Figure 5: The Schema/Filter Model of CON applied to licensing........................118
Figure 6: Schema/Filter Model variants for a three-way category.......................119
Figure 7: Morphological and Phonological Structure of Italian
definite outputs.....................................................................................125
Figure 8: Morphological and Phonological Structure..........................................155
Figure 9: Morphological Structure as a level of representation............................180
Figure 10: Assigning morphological exponence..................................................181
Figure 11: Constraint lattice for Number marking in Romanian.........................207
Figure 12: Constraint reranking in the evolution of Romanian............................224
Figure 13: Assessing Morpheme Realization.......................................................227
xii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation explores the correlation between grammatical markedness and
the phonological properties of outputs inflected for morpho-syntactic categories on
a grammatical markedness hierarchy. The main claim made in the thesis is that,
under otherwise similar phonological conditions, outputs carrying specifications
for a marked member (g) of a given grammatical category (G) can license a given
type of marked phonological structure (M) to an extent that is equal or greater than
outputs inflected for the unmarked category.
I label this generalization ‘Marked in the Marked’ (MIM). Within the
theoretical framework assumed for the dissertation (Optimality Theory, Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004), I propose that the universal repository of constraints
(CON) be enriched so as to include a family of formal licensing constraints
LICENSE(M,g) that license marked phonological structure (M) in output words that
carry the morpho-syntactic specifications of the marked member (g) of G. I
propose that the licensing constraint is functionally grounded in the sense that the
marked value g is determined by recourse to language use factors such as
frequency of occurrence in discourse. Only licensing constraints for marked values
g are allowed in CON.
The content of the notions ‘grammatical markedness’ and ‘phonological
markedness’ is reviewed and criteria for the two kinds of markedness are
discussed. Manifestations of phonological markedness and their grammatical
category underpinnings are discussed at the following levels: prosodic (Old
xiii
Saxon), segmental (Romanian) and phonotactic (Mayak). For all these cases, the
Marked in the Marked constraint schema (in interaction with other relevant
constraints) and the factorial typology associated with it are shown to make the
correct empirical predictions.
A functional grounding account of the MIM effects discussed in the
dissertation is laid out. MIM phenomena are assumed to arise from factors of
economy in language production in the sense that confining marked phonological
structure to less frequent, grammatically marked forms contributes to minimization
of speaker’s effort. Also, the presence of marked phonological material in outputs
inflected for the marked grammatical category may have certain advantages in
language perception, retrieval and acquisition.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The present dissertation discusses the correlation between grammatical (or
inflectional) markedness and the phonological properties of outputs that are
inflected for the marked/unmarked members of grammatical categories. The main
claim put forth in the thesis is that, under otherwise similar phonological
conditions, outputs inflected for the marked member of a category are
characterized by equal or greater phonological markedness than outputs inflected
for the unmarked category, a generalization that I label ‘Marked in the Marked’
(MIM).
A considerable body of work in linguistics has long acknowledged the
importance of markedness, a concept first developed by the Prague School
(Jakobson 1932/1984, 1939/1984, Trubetzkoy 1939/1969) and conceived as a
language internal property of category values. Within this view, markedness is
described in terms of polar oppositions between linguistic objects such that the
unmarked member of the opposition is simpler and more general than the marked
one. It can be noted that in the original Praguean sense the marked and unmarked
members of a category are in a privative opposition in the sense that the marked
term is characterized by the presence of a mark or feature while the unmarked one,
by the absence of the mark.
2
To take a very simple example, in a language like English, where the plural
is usually expressed in nouns by the suffix -s and the singular has no overt affixal
expression, one can say that with respect to the category of Number the marked
term of the Singular-Plural opposition is the Plural. It should be noted that the
Praguean approach to markedness (and grammatical markedness in particular) is
largely language-specific and makes no explicit claims as to the universality of
categories and processes involved.
In more recent years, the concept of markedness has been incorporated into
a theory of typological universals developed by Greenberg (1966ab). Throughout
this dissertation I will assume a Greenbergian perspective on markedness, which I
will henceforth refer to as grammatical, inflectional or typological markedness. In
contrast with the view held by the Prague School, the Greenbergian approach
capitalizes on the universal asymmetries in the grammatical properties of items
that are otherwise equal on a certain dimension of analysis. These asymmetries are
the outcome of higher complexity in the more marked element, expressed in terms
of structural makeup, richness of inflectional paradigms and allomorphy (all of
which fall under the label ‘structural coding’ (Croft 2003), or language use factors
such as frequency of occurrence.
The topic of the present dissertation is the relation between grammatical or
inflectional markedness (as reflected in markedness hierarchies) and the
phonological properties of the output forms characterized by various degrees of
such markedness. The dissertation is intended as a contribution to bridging the
3
existing gap between research on markedness in linguistic typology, broadly
understood as “the study of patterns that occur systematically across languages”
(Croft 2003:1) and research on markedness in phonology.
In the dissertation I review the notion of grammatical and phonological
markedness, respectively, and address the issues in (1a.) and (1b.) below:
(1) Main issues addressed in the dissertation
a. what is the correlation between grammatical and phonological
markedness and how can it be stated?
b. how can the correlation in (a) be accounted for?
Three case studies are brought to bear on these issues. To preview the
phenomena discussed in the thesis, first consider case marking in Old Saxon
nouns. In Old Saxon, both the Nominative-Accusative (Direct) and the Dative-
Instrumental (Oblique) Case are expressed underlyingly by the same high vowel
suffix /-u/. However, in the grammatically unmarked Nominative-Accusative, the
Case marker deletes whenever it would lead to a metrically marked uneven trochee
(HL) consisting of a heavy (H) and a light syllable (L):
4
(2) Nominative-Accusative: the case suffix /-u/ deletes whenever its realization
would lead to uneven (HL) trochees:
/her-u
Nom.
/ → [(hé.ru)]
Nom.
(LL) *[(hér)] ‘sword’
/luft-u
Nom.
/ → [(lúft)]
Nom.
(H) *[(lúf.tu)] ‘air’
In contrast, the grammatically marked Dative-Instrumental (or Oblique)
case is characterized by retention of the Case marker /u/ no matter what kind or
trochee (even or uneven) obtains:
(3) Oblique: the case suffix /-u/ is retained irrespective of metrical properties:
/her-u
Obl.
/ → [(hé.ru)]
Obl.
(LL) *[(hér)] ‘sword’
/luft-u
Obl.
/ → [(lúf.tu)]
Obl.
(HL) *[(lúft)] ‘air’
On a Greenbergian grammatical markedness scale, the Oblique (Dative-
Instrumental) Case is ranked higher than the Nominative-Accusative. Also, the
Oblique Case allows for a type of phonologically marked metrical structure (the
uneven trochee), which is systematically avoided in the Nominative-Accusative.
The grammatically marked Case can therefore allow for a more diverse range of
metrical structures, including marked metrical structure never seen in the
grammatically unmarked Case.
A more complex instance of connection between grammatical and
phonological markedness is provided by Number marking in Romanian nominals.
5
In Standard Romanian, the Singular and the Plural of masculines and neuters are
expressed by high vowel suffixes, /u/ and /i/, respectively. In word-final position
high vowels are generally avoided in the language’s phonology. The suffix of the
grammatically unmarked Singular typically deletes in outputs (4a.) and surfaces
only when compelled by syllabification requirements, as in (4b.), given the fact
that in Romanian coda clusters with rising sonority are strictly forbidden:
(4) Singular marking in Romanian
a. /mo +u
Sg.
/ → [(mó )]
Sg.
‘old man’ *[(mó. u)]
b. /akr+u
Sg.
/ → [(á.kru)]
Sg.
‘sour-Sg.’ *[(ákr)]
Unlike the Singular forms, in the grammatically marked Plural the high
vowel affix always has an expression in outputs, either it as palatalization on the
final consonant of the stem (5a.) or as the full vowel (5b.), in avoidance of an illicit
coda:
(5) Plural marking in Romanian
a./mo +i
Pl.
/ → [(mó
j
)]
Pl.
‘old men’ *[(mó. i)]
b./akr+i
Pl.
/ → [(á.kri)]
Pl.
‘sour-Pl.’ *[(ákr)]
What the data in (4) and (5) show is that the phonological content of the
grammatically marked Plural never deletes completely and is retained in outputs
6
even at the cost of creating a consonant with secondary articulation, a segmental
marked structure that is never encountered in Standard Romanian in the
grammatically unmarked Singular.
Finally, consider the behavior of Voice morphemes in Mayak (Western
Nilotic). Mayak voiceless stops normally undergo intervocalic lenition and
become voiced fricatives or approximants. Active and Passive suffixes are both
vowel-initial and, when attached to a consonant-final stem, should both trigger
lenition of the consonant if it is preceded by a vowel. This is what we see in the
grammatically unmarked Active Voice:
(6) Active Voice: underlying intervocalic voiceless stops lenite
/maat - r
Act.
/ → [maar]
Act.
‘eat-Active’ *[maat r]
Outputs inflected for the grammatically marked Passive resist lenition
under circumstances similar with those above:
(7) Passive Voice: underlying intervocalic voiceless stops are parsed faithfully
/maat - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
‘eat-Passive’ *[maa r]
The explanation developed in this dissertation is that Passive affixation
creates a type of marked phonotactic structure (a voiceless stop flanked by two
7
vowels) that is banned in the grammatically unmarked Active Voice, even if the
phonological makeup of the Voice markers is relatively similar.
The Old Saxon, Romanian and Mayak phenomena all point in the same
direction: the presence of marked phonological structure in the marked
grammatical category. This is the correlation between grammatical and
phonological markedness referred to in (1a.). The answer to question (1a.) that I
offer in this dissertation is that there is a correlation between grammatical and
phonological markedness. The link between the two types of markedness is a
positive one; that is, marked grammatical categories are apt to license marked
phonological structure to an extent that is equal or greater than in the less marked
categories. I label this the Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization:
(8) The Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization
If g
1
and g
2
are members of the grammatical category G such that g
2
ranks
higher than g
1
on the grammatical markedness hierarchy (g
2
> g
1
), outputs
O inflected for g
2
can license marked phonological structure to an extent
that is equal or greater than g
1
(the unmarked term).
MIM will be shown to make the right empirical predictions in a number of
language cases (Old Saxon, Standard Romanian and other dialects of Romanian,
Mayak). In order to understand better the content of the MIM generalization, a few
8
clarification points are in place here regarding the notions ‘grammatical category’
and ‘licensing’.
A grammatical category (G) is understood, following Bybee (1985),
Crystal (1985) and Hopper (1992), as a set of syntactic features that express
meanings from the same conceptual domain. For example, the category of Number
(in an inflected output) is represented by the relevant syntactic features for
‘number’ in the morpho-syntactic representation (Morphological Structure, MS
1
)
of that output. The category is usually represented by two or more values, that
correspond to specific settings of the ‘number’ features. For Number, the members
are represented by Singular, Plural, Dual etc., each of them having the required
syntactic specification on the ‘number’ syntactic node in MS. In this dissertation,
grammatical categories are represented by upper case G, while their members are
represented by lower case letters (g
i
)
2
. For a system with three values of the
category of Number (Singular, Plural and Dual), the members of G are represented
by the set {g
1
(Singular), g
2
(Plural), g
3
(Dual)}, arranged on the grammatical
markedness scale in the decreasing order of their markedness as g
3
> g
2
> g
1
(Dual > Plural > Singular). In defining a grammatical category, complementarity
plays an important role. Indeed, in a two-way (Singular-Plural) Number system,
the two members are in complementary distribution, and in a multi-way system the
members divide the conceptual space without a residue. An inflected form does
not assume two or more values of a given grammatical category at the same time –
1
For the concept of Morphological Structure (MS) see Halle and Marantz (1993).
2
When used without a subscript, g is understood as the marked member of G.
9
for example, a noun can either be ‘Singular’ or ‘Plural’, but never both. In
contrast, members of different categories can coexist in the Morphological
Structure of one and the same inflected output – for instance, a noun can be both
‘Plural’ (category of Number) and ‘Dative’ (category of Case).
The fact that an output O is inflected for category G means that there is a
syntactic node for G in the Morphological Structure of the output. Moreover, the
node in question has the specific setting ‘g
i
’ for the particular value of G that O is
inflected for. For instance, a Singular output has a Number node in its
Morphological Structure whose morpho-syntactic feature interpretation is
‘singular’. This is not to say that the grammatical features in question are
necessarily assigned to a particular phonological constituent, but rather that the
Grammatical Word for O carries those features, presumably due to feature
percolation. Consider, for illustration, the Standard Romanian data in (4), repeated
below as (9):
(9) Singular marking in Romanian
a. /mo +u
Sg.
/ → [(mó. )]
Sg.
‘old man’ *[(mó. u)]
b. /akr+u
Sg.
/ → [(á.kru)]
Sg.
‘sour-Sg.’ *[(ákr)]
In (9) above, both outputs (9a.) and (9b.) are inflected for Number,
specifically, they are both Singular forms. However, for reasons that will be
discussed in detail in Chapter 5, the Singular marker /-u
Sg.
/ surfaces only in output
10
(9b.), but deletes in output (9a.). This is not to say that the bare stem output (9a.)
does not count as a Singular form, although in its phonological representation the
Number node carrying Singular morpho-syntactic specifications does not have an
overt expression. The whole Morphological Structure (MS) in (9a.) counts as
‘Singular’ due to percolation of the feature ‘singular’ from the syntactic node to
the word level (for the mechanism of percolation, see Lieber (1980) and Williams
(1981)).
For convenience, diagrams representing the Phonological Structure (PS)
and Morphological Structure (MS) of the two Romanian outputs are given in (10),
following Kager (1999):
(10) Figure 1 Morphological and Phonological Structure
a. PS b. PS
|
σ σ σ
mo a.kru
Root (Sg.) Root Sg.
|
MS(Sg.) MS(Sg.)
The Morphological Structure of output (10a.) above contains a stem/root
with no Singular suffix attached. Although the suffix is not superficially present,
the word still counts as a Singular form due to percolation of the ‘singular’
11
Number feature from the syntactic node to word level in MS. In Phonological
Structure, the stem/root equals a syllable (σ). In (10b.) the Singular morpho-
syntactic features are assigned to a suffix that has an overt expression in PS and
forms the nucleus of the second syllable. We note in passing that in (10b.) there is
a mismatch between the organization of MS (consisting of a stem/root plus a
Singular suffix) and that of PS (consisting of two syllables), in the sense that
stem/root segments in MS are distributed over two syllables in PS. It should be
noted that MS and PS do not constitute separate levels of analysis, but different
facets of one and the same output (more details on PS and MS are provided in
Chapter 5 §1.2.2). To conclude the discussion, in the formulation of the MIM
generalization the level of description at which grammatical categories are relevant
is the Morphological Structure of the inflected output. It carries the morpho-
syntactic features of grammatical categories, although affixal markers may not
always be phonologically realized (and therefore present in Phonological
Structure).
An important component in the statement of the MIM generalization (8) is
licensing of marked phonological structure (M) in outputs inflected for a marked
member (g) of a grammatical category G. In this dissertation licensing is viewed as
a material implication relation. The fact that marked phonological structure M in
an output is licensed in a marked member g of G should be understood as a
material implication of the type ‘M ⊃ g’. This implication says that the presence of
marked phonological structure M in the Phonological Structure of an output entails
12
the presence of morpho-syntactic features for g in the Morphological Structure of
the output. As an illustration, consider Old Saxon Case. Recall that in the
grammatically marked Oblique Case uneven (HL) trochees, an instance of marked
metrical structure, are allowed (3). In contrast, in the unmarked Nominative-
Accusative (‘Direct’ Case) uneven trochees are prohibited (2). In terms of
licensing, uneven trochees are licensed in the Oblique because their presence in an
output grammatical word entails the presence of the morpho-syntactic feature
‘oblique’ in the Morphological Structure of that output. In contrast, uneven
trochees are not licensed in the unmarked Nominative-Accusative in Old Saxon as
their presence in an output does not entail the presence of the unmarked morpho-
syntactic feature ‘nominative-accusative’ in the Morphological Structure.
Given the way licensing is conceived of in this dissertation as a material
implication from Phonological to Morphological Structure, it is not the case that
all Oblique forms should contain the marked phonological structure in question. In
particular, there are instances of Oblique outputs that have (LL) even trochees, as
in the first datum in (3) shows. What is not predicted is a situation where the
output inflected for the unmarked grammatical category may contain marked
phonological structure that is consistently absent from the output of the marked
category. I will return to this important prediction of MIM in Chapter 3 §5. Also,
the logical formulation of licensing will be made more specific in Chapter 3 §4. As
discussed below, licensing is conceived of here as an optimality-theoretic
13
constraint, and the degree to which it is enforced therefore depends on its ranking
in a given language’s constraint hierarchy.
The theoretical framework assumed for the phonological analyses in the
thesis is Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)
3
. A central
idea in OT is that grammars are systems of forces in conflict represented by
constraints. Constraints are universal and make up the so-called constraint
repository CON. An important property of OT constraints is the fact that they are
violable and rankable, such that no output form can satisfy all constraints at the
same time and the actual outputs emerge as the forms that incur fewer violations of
the high-ranking constraints.
The object of evaluation by the constraints in CON is represented by a
potentially unlimited number of output candidates generated by another
component of the OT architecture, GEN. GEN is a functional application that
generates a set of candidates starting from an input. The evaluation of these
candidates against the set of ranked constraints is performed by EVAL, a
mechanism that maps the set of possible outputs produced by GEN (cand
i
) onto a
unique output form (the most harmonic one given the particular configuration of
the constraint hierarchy), which represents the actual output. The way the
functional applications GEN and EVAL work is shown in the schema below,
following Kager (1999):
3
The seminal work on Optimality Theory is Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004), with
developments by McCarthy and Prince (1993, 1995). For general introductions to OT, see
Archangeli and Langendoen (1997), Kager (1999) and McCarthy (2002b).
14
(11) The input-output mechanism of an OT grammar
GEN (input) ⇒ {cand
1
, cand
2
... cand
n
}
EVAL {cand
1
, cand
2
... cand
n
} ⇒ output
As a generative theory of language, OT in its classic form uses two levels
of representations, input and output, but unlike in other generative models, there
are no intermediate stages between these levels or any derivations. There are two
kinds of forces in conflict in OT, encapsulated in relevant constraints: markedness,
which enforces well-formedness conditions on outputs, and faithfulness, which
militates for the identity of input and output
4
. A central notion in OT is factorial
typology, representing all of the possible rankings (‘grammars’) for a given
constraint set. Factorial typologies make predictions as regards linguistic variation
along the dimensions or properties represented by the constraints in question. The
empirical adequacy of such predictions can be tested against attested language
data.
As an illustration of the evaluation mechanism in Optimality Theory,
consider a grammar consisting of three constraints C
1
, C
2
and C
3
in CON, ranked
such that C
1
and C
2
dominate C
3
(C
1
, C
2
» C
3
). The object of evaluation by EVAL is
made up of three conceivable outputs (cand
1
, cand
2
, cand
3
) produced by the
application of GEN to an input. The evaluation is usually represented in a tableau
4
Constraint conflicts are not only between markedness and faithfulness. For example, two
markedness constraints can be in conflict with each other.
15
form, where the actual candidate selected by GEN is by convention indicated by a
pointing hand:
(12) Table 1 C
1
, C
2
» C
3
/Input/ C
1
C
2
C
3
a. " cand
1
*
b. cand
2
*!
c. cand
3
*!
In the top row of Tableau (12), the three relevant constraints are arranged
from left to right so as to reflect their position on the constraint hierarchy. By
convention, strict domination relations on the hierarchy are shown by solid vertical
lines, as between C
2
and C
3
. The fact that C
1
and C
2
are not crucially ranked with
respect to each other is indicated by a dotted line. Constraint violations are
indicated by asterisks, while exclamation marks indicate fatal violations. Tableau
cells that are shadowed are not relevant for evaluation.
An examination of the three candidates in Tableau (12) with respect to the
constraint hierarchy shows that candidates (12b.) and (12c.) violate constraints C
1
and C
2
, respectively, which make up the upper stratum of the hierarchy. Thus they
incur fatal violations (*!) and lose to candidate (12a.) which, although incurring a
violation of C
3
, emerges as the winner. Thus (12a.) represents the optimal output
for the given constraint hierarchy, in spite of the fact that it does not satisfy all
three constraints. The fact that it violates a bottom-ranked constraint (C
3
) does not
prevent it from becoming the winner, as long as it satisfies top-ranked C
1
and C
2
,
16
which are violated by either one of the two competitors. Had C
3
been top-ranked,
(12b.) and (12c.) would have had the chance to win, and in order to establish the
actual output we would have needed a ranking argument for C
1
and C
2
.
To return to the MIM generalization, recall that one of its essential
ingredients is licensing. Couched in optimality-theoretic terms, the dissertation
introduces a family of formal licensing (markedness) constraints dubbed
LICENSE(M,g)
5
, where M is a marked phonological structure and g, a marked
member of grammatical category G. LICENSE(M,g) is satisfied by outputs
containing M in their Phonological Structure that are inflected for g, and violated
by outputs containing M that are not inflected for the marked member of G. For
example, in Old Saxon outputs with uneven trochees in the Oblique Case satisfy
the licensing constraint, while outputs with uneven trochees in the Direct
(Nominative-Accusative) Case violate it.
The MIM generalization and its workings find an OT expression as a
particular constraint hierarchy that I label ‘The MIM Schema’ shown in (13):
(13) The Marked in the Marked Schema
LICENSE(M,g) » FAITH » *M
5
For the notion of licensing in phonology, see Itô (1986/1988), Goldsmith (1990), Itô, Mester and
Padgett (1995), Zoll (1996, 1998), Crosswhite (2001), Walker (2001ab, 2004, 2005) etc. For a
discussion of licensing and a formal definition of LICENSE(M,g) see Chapter 3 §§3-4.
17
In (13) FAITH represents an instantiation of faithfulness and *M, a context-
free markedness constraint that disallows the presence of phonological structure M
in outputs. The effect of the activity of (13) is that phonologically marked structure
M is permitted only in the marked grammatical category g. Under this particular
ranking scenario, M would occur with contrastive distribution in g but be excluded
elsewhere. A case involving M that shows allophonic distribution is discussed in
Chapter 6.
The advantages of using the OT approach to the phenomena under
investigation become apparent if we consider the implications of factorial
typology. Indeed, the hierarchy in (13) represents only one possible ranking of the
three constraints in question, under which MIM effects are predicted to emerge
(marked phonological structure M occurs only in the marked member g of
grammatical category G). Without going into details, the factorial typology
associated with (13) predicts two other situations: one in which M can occur both
inside and outside g (‘full contrast’) and one in which M never occurs in a
language irrespective of category and lexical specification (see Chapter 3 §5.2 for
a detailed discussion of the factorial typology). Crucially, what is not predicted is a
language where marked phonological structure M occurs only in the unmarked
member of grammatical category G and is excluded from the marked member g.
The main advantage of the OT approach to phenomena involving MIM
phenomena resides in the typological predictions that can be made, which are
intrinsic to the architecture of OT. Specifically, due to the universality and
18
rankability of constraints, the factorial typology yields exactly the expected
language types with respect to the relation between marked phonological structure
and grammatical categories on a grammatical markedness scale. In contrast, a rule-
based approach is incapable of yielding the predicted typology. This matter will be
taken up in Chapter 3, where the advantages of OT are discussed in more detail.
Let us now turn to the second question (1b.) that this dissertation provides
an answer to, namely how to account for the correlation between phonological and
grammatical markedness. In this regard, a formal account grounded in functional
considerations is put forth for MIM. I claim that MIM phenomena emerge as
instances of phonological grammars which are shaped by functional factors that
ultimately reside in economy and frequency of occurrence of inflected outputs.
As already shown, I claim that marked phonological structure is licensed in
outputs inflected for marked grammatical categories. In turn, the marked status of
a grammatical category is determined by the frequency (ϕ) of occurrence of
inflected outputs. In Chapter 2, frequency of occurrence will be shown to represent
a major criterion in establishing the status of a grammatical category on a
markedness scale, in the sense that frequency inversely correlates with
markedness. The morpho-syntactic features of the marked grammatical category
can act as licensors of marked phonological material in inflected output words, as
illustrated schematically in (14):
19
Output inflected for g
2
(14) Figure 2 Licensing of marked phonological material in the marked category
Language use factors (‘performance’) ... ϕ
2
< ϕ
1
...
Grammatical markedness hierarchy ... g
2
> g
1
...
Morphological Structure (MS) MS(g
2
)
Phonological Structure (PS) [... M ...]
The schema in (14) has two parts. The top one relates factors of language
use, specifically, the frequency of occurrence, and the grammatical markedness
hierarchy. Frequency (ϕ) of occurrence determines the place of the members (g
1
and g
2
) of a morpho-syntactic category G on the markedness hierarchy. If the
frequency of occurrence ϕ
1
of g
1
is greater than the frequency of occurrence ϕ
2
of
category g
2
(ϕ
1
> ϕ
2
), the markedness relation between g
1
and g
2
is g
2
> g
1
(g
2
is
more marked than g
1
), as shown in (14). In other words, the more marked member
of the grammatical hierarchy (g
2
) is characterized by a lower frequency of
occurrence than the unmarked member (g
1
).
The licensing mechanism described above relies on the notion of
‘frequency of occurrence’. While there may be certain degrees of variation with
respect to the frequency of individual elements, the frequency data for a given
linguistic system hold as relatively fixed. As an illustration, it has been shown that
in English the frequency of negative clauses is 12% of all clauses in fictional
20
varieties of language, and only 5% in academic varieties (Givón 1993). Despite the
higher frequency of negatives in the fictional domain, affirmative clauses remain
overwhelmingly more frequent, irrespective of the language variety considered.
This statistic behavior renders negative constructions a marked morpho-syntactic
status as compared to their affirmative counterparts. It is in this sense that the
‘fixedness’ of frequency parameters should be understood.
The bottom part of schema (14) represents the licensing of marked
phonological structure (M) in words that are inflected for the marked grammatical
category (g
2
). The Morphological Structure (MS(g
2
)) of those words contains the
morpho-syntactic node that carries the specifications for g
2
, according to the way
grammatical categories were defined above. If we consider the Phonological
Structure (PS) of an output inflected for G, a given marked phonological structure
within PS is said to be licensed by the marked member g
2
of a given category G if
the Morphological Structure (MS) of that output word has the morpho-syntactic
specifications for g
2
(MS(g
2
)). The optimality-theoretic implementation of the
licensing mechanism and the constraint LICENSE(M,g) are discussed in detail in
Chapter 3.
As an illustration of the schema in (14), the phonologically marked
structure ‘uneven trochee’ in Old Saxon (2-3) is licensed in the Phonological
Structure of Oblique nominals by the presence of the relevant marked ‘oblique’
case feature in the Morphological Structure of the inflected output. The marked
character of the Oblique case is given by a language use factor represented by its
21
lower frequency of occurrence as compared to other Case forms, notably the
Nominative-Accusative (or Direct) case. Unmarked phonological structures are not
subject to licensing and can occur in either the grammatically marked category or
in the grammatically unmarked one. As we shall see in Chapter 3, it is the
frequency of occurrence that acts as a substantive filter on licensing constraints
and allows only licensing constraints for less frequent, grammatically marked
categories to be part of the universal constraint repository CON in Optimality
Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004).
The way in which grammatical markedness is conceived of in this
dissertation and the claimed relation between grammatical and phonological
markedness raise the issue of how functional factors can shape grammars. The
effect of language use factors on grammars has been emphasized in recent years by
proponents of the functional-typological approach (starting with Greenberg
1966ab), who claim that grammars are shaped by forces that have to do with
economy and distinctiveness in communication. In this dissertation I highlight the
impact of functional factors on grammars. In particular, the workings of language
use forces can be seen in the licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g) which, I claim, is
part of the universal constraint repository CON of Optimality Theory. In the
statement of this constraint, the marked member (g) of grammatical category G,
whose morpho-syntactic features license marked phonological structure M in
inflected outputs, is ultimately determined by a language use factor represented by
the frequency (ϕ) of occurrence. The adequacy of LICENSE(M,g) is supported by
22
the factorial typology associated with the MIM schema, which makes the right
predictions as to the range of patterns involving the presence of M inside and
outside outputs inflected for g. Also, given the way in which it is defined,
LICENSE(M,g) represents an instance of functionally grounded constraint
6
. The
issue of how functional factors impact grammar is dealt with in Chapters 2-3.
MIM patterns are also shown to favor economy in speech production in the
sense that confining marked phonological material to less frequent, grammatically
marked categories represents a communicative advantage on the part of speakers.
Certain advantages may also exist on the hearer’s part and can be noted in
perception, retrieval and acquisition of inflected forms. These issues are dealt with
in more detail in Chapter 2 §5.
The dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides an overview of
grammatical and phonological markedness and discusses the criteria used in
assessing the two kinds of markedness. Frequency of occurrence is highlighted as
the main criterion for grammatical markedness, while structural and articulatory
complexity together with (non-)occurrence in phonological inventories across
languages is regarded as the most robust criterion of phonological markedness.
Also, the chapter proposes a functional account of the Marked in the Marked
effects arising from the licensing of marked phonological structure in marked
grammatical categories.
6
For the issue of functional grounding of OT constraints, see Chapter 3 §1.1.
23
Chapter 3 introduces the optimality-theoretic tools to be employed in
analyzing Marked in the Marked effects, in particular, a class of formal licensing
constraints grounded in language use, and introduces the MIM schema from a
formal point of view. The chapter ends with a discussion of the factorial typology
that the MIM schema is part of and the typological predictions that can be made
are laid out.
Chapters 4-6 are illustrations of the activity of MIM in three languages:
Old Saxon (Chapter 4), Romanian (Chapter 5) and Mayak (Chapter 6), which
provide the case studies necessary to support and illustrate the hypothesis.
Chapter 7 states the conclusions of the dissertation and directions for future
research.
24
CHAPTER 2
GRAMMATICAL AND PHONOLOGICAL MARKEDNESS
0. Introduction
This chapter is devoted to a review of the notion ‘markedness’ in morpho-syntax
(‘grammatical markedness’) and phonology (‘phonological markedness’).
According to the main claim of this dissertation, a connection exists between these
two kinds of markedness in the sense that marked grammatical categories sponsor
marked phonological material to an extent greater or equal than in the unmarked
grammatical category.
I start by discussing grammatical markedness in §1, where the most
important criteria for grammatical markedness are presented, with emphasis on
frequency of occurrence. §2 looks into the expression of marked versus unmarked
grammatical categories and refutes relative phonological size as a reliable property
of the respective output forms. In §3 the most important criteria for phonological
markedness are laid out. §4 tests the frequency of occurrence – phonological
markedness correlation expressed by the Marked in the Marked (MIM)
generalization on open versus closed class items and roots versus affixes.
§5 is devoted to a functional grounding account of MIM effects introduced in §4.
§6 is a brief recapitulation of the issues discussed in the chapter.
25
1. Criteria for grammatical markedness
1.1 Structural coding
An important criterion for distinguishing the marked from the unmarked member
of an opposition involving grammatical (morpho-syntactic) categories is structural
coding, defined in (15) below following Croft (2003):
(15) Structural coding
The marked value of a grammatical category will be expressed by at least
as many morphemes as the unmarked value of that category. (Croft
2003:92)
For example, it may often be the case that the unmarked value of a
category has a null grammatical morpheme as the specific marker, so the output
for the category is equivalent to the bare root. The marked category will have
either a null affix mark, or a non-null one, which attaches to the root. Either way,
there are at least as many phonologically overt morphemes in the marked value of
the category as in the unmarked one.
When applied to the category of number, structural coding allows for the
following situations (16):
26
(16) (a) zero coding for the unmarked value (Singular) and overt coding for the
marked value (Plural), as in English:
dog-Ø
Sg.
vs. dog-s
Pl.
(b) zero coding for both values, Singular and Plural, as in Minor Malabri
(Croft 2003:89):
w ‘child/children’
(c) overt coding for both the singular and plural, as in Zulu (Croft
2003:88):
umu-ntu ‘Singular-person’
aba-ntu ‘Plural-person’
A fourth, conceivable case is represented by languages that overtly code
the Singular but have a zero Plural. The markedness criterion of structural coding
predicts that this type is non-existent
7
. The predictions made on the basis of
structural coding are illustrated in (17):
(17) Table 2 Overt versus null inflection in Number
Null singular morpheme Overt singular
morpheme
Overt plural morpheme English Latin, Greek, Russian,
Romanian, Zulu
Null plural morpheme Minor Malabri
Mandarin Chinese
-
7
Such cases would only be predicted to occur if independent factors prevented the realization of
the Plural in some language.
27
An important insight into the nature of markedness is the statement of
grammatical markedness properties as implicational universals rather than absolute
properties. For the pattern illustrated in (17) the implicational universal is stated in
(18):
(18) If a language uses an overt inflection in the singular, then it also uses an
overt inflection in the plural. (Croft 2003:89)
In a two-way (Singular - Plural) system, the implicational universal for the
category of Number (15) is conventionally stated as Plural > Singular. This
formalism, understood as ‘Plural is more marked than Singular’, is also meant to
express the implication in (18).
Starting with the seminal work of Greenberg (1966ab) and the advent of
the implicational perspective in grammatical typology, grammatical markedness
has been expressed in terms of universal feature hierarchies, where features are
understood as the abstract expression of morpho-syntactic categories. Grammatical
markedness hierarchies have been proposed for a large variety of categories,
including cross-categorial relations. Examples of hierarchies are given in (19)
below, following Croft (2003). In (19) members or values of the categories are
arranged in the decreasing order of their markedness:
28
(19) Examples of morphological markedness hierarchies
Number (noun, pronoun, adjective, verb): trial (paucal) > dual > plural >
> singular
Gender (noun, adjective): neuter > feminine > masculine
Case (noun, adjective): oblique > nominative
Person (verb): 2
nd
> 1
st
> 3
rd
(or 1
st
, 2
nd
> 3
rd
)
Tense (verb): future > preterit (past) > present
Aspect (verb, verb phrase): perfective > imperfective
Mood (verb, sentence): hypothetical (subjunctive) > indicative
Voice (verb): passive > active
Inflectional categories: gender > number
Likewise, in the area of phonology hierarchies have been proposed for
distinctive features (20)
8
:
(20) Examples of phonological feature hierarchies
Nasality (vowels): [+nasal] > [-nasal]
Voice (vowels, sonorants): [-voice] > [+voice]
Voice (obstruents): [+voice] > [-voice]
8
For work on phonological feature hierarchies, see Jakobson and Halle (1956), Dresher (2003) and
the references therein, and Croft (2003).
29
The last two decades have witnessed a revival of the interest in
grammatical markedness. Proponents of Natural Morphology (Dressler 1985ab,
Mayerthaler 1981/1988, 1987, Wurzel 1989, 1998 etc.) capitalize on the
predictability and ‘naturalness’ of unmarked members of oppositions. Other
authors (notably Battistella 1990, 1996) concentrate on criteria for the evaluation
of markedness from a logical perspective and implications for language change.
Finally, from the perspective of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993)
grammatical markedness has been analyzed in terms of morphological features and
feature neutralization (Bonet 1991, Noyer 1992, Bobaljik 2002, Bailyn and Nevins
2004, Harley 2004, Nevins 2006 etc.).
The main question remains what the very nature of grammatical
markedness is. While structural coding remains an important diagnostic of
markedness, a fuller understanding of the concept is impossible without reference
to frequency of occurrence, as we shall see in §1.2.
1.2. Frequency
1.2.1 The failure of the iconicity approach to grammatical markedness
Survey work on grammatical linguistic typology (Croft 1990, 2003) has attempted
to establish a possible connection between markedness and iconicity, the latter
understood as a way in which “the structure of language [...] reflects the structure
of experience” (Croft 2003:102). While a detailed discussion of the iconicity
criterion for grammatical markedness would take us too far afield, suffice it to say
30
that less marked elements are generally more iconic than more marked ones. The
idea, appealing at first sight, has considerable drawbacks.
According to the iconicity approach, Plural forms that are overtly marked
by inflection can be said to reflect conceptual complexity in that they have more
phonological material than the corresponding Singular forms. However, if we
examine a three-way (Singular, Plural, Dual) system, we can see that the iconicity
approach is confronted with a problem. The key observation is that the Plural can
be realized by reduplication, but the Dual is always marked by affixation (cross-
linguistically, reduplicated duals seem to be unattested). Within a theory of
markedness based on iconicity, this behavior is hard, if not impossible, to
accommodate, because we would expect the less marked member of the category
(Plural) to be more iconic and reflect reality more faithfully than the more marked
one (Dual). Yet it is the Plural that encodes duality from a phonological point of
view (reduplicated forms contain a stem and a copy thereof, in other words, a pair
of entities), and the Dual just reflects some general conceptual complexity (stem
plus affix).
A similar difficulty is encountered when one assesses the iconicity of other
grammatical categories. In a study of reduplication in Australian languages,
Fabricius (1998) notes a number of mismatches between iconicity and markedness.
For example, reduplication is unexpectedly used to express the ‘stative truth’
aspect in Kuku Yalangi, or the ‘attenuative’ aspect in Yankunytjatjara, and no
iconicity account seems available for such cases.
31
As a matter of fact, as Haspelmath (2003) points out, both iconicity and
(global) markedness are vague, polysemous notions
9
. With respect to iconicity, he
convincingly argues that it should be replaced by a concept of economy (perhaps
incorporating distinctiveness and parsability). As regards (global) markedness,
Haspelmath proceeds to a deconstruction of the cover term ‘markedness’ and
concludes that what has traditionally been regarded as markedness oppositions in
the Greenbergian tradition are in fact frequency asymmetries motivated by a
principle of economy.
1.2.2 Markedness as a consequence of economy
The hierarchies that express grammatical markedness can therefore be viewed as
the manifestations of an economy principle that translate into differences in the
frequency of use of the respective forms, an idea already present in the work of
Greenberg (1966a). While it might be agreed that the grammatical markedness
illustrated by the hierarchies in (19) is reflected in structural coding, there is no
such consensus for the phonological hierarchy in (20). Some phonologists
subscribe to underspecification or monovalent features, but this is not without
controversy.
Nevertheless, the question arises whether markedness hierarchies represent
primitives of linguistic description or derived objects.
9
Haspelmath (2003) distinguishes no less than twelve acceptations of ‘iconicity’ and ‘markedness’,
respectively.
32
Most contemporary researchers in morpho-syntactic typology favor the
latter answer, especially given the complexity and heterogeneous nature of the
concept of markedness. In a review, Haspelmath (2003) argues that there are as
many as twelve possible acceptations of the term ‘markedness’ that nevertheless
share important characteristics and he attempts to identify the unifying factor,
which he believes to lie in language use (or linguistic performance
10
). Along
similar lines, Hawkins (2004) shows that grammatical hierarchies are derived
notions representing cross-linguistic generalizations that emerge from the
interaction between grammar and performance.
Performance is a concept that can be traced back to the early days of
linguistic structuralism (‘parole’ in the sense of de Saussure 1916/1972, as
opposed to ‘langue’) to generative linguistics (‘performance’ (Chomsky 1965), ‘E-
language’ (Chomsky 1986), as opposed to ‘competence’ and ‘I-language’,
respectively). Although the labels used in linguistic parlance may differ, the term
‘performance’ is used essentially to designate the actual, physical and observable
manifestations of the abstract linguistic system that speakers/ hearers are endowed
with (‘competence’). Performance covers aspects of language use such as
production and perception or constraints imposed by the cognitive system
(processing, memory load or pragmatic/informational factors).
Although since the advent of generative linguistics the focus of
investigation has mainly been on the side of competence, performance issues
10
A brief discussion of the concept of performance is given below.
33
cannot be overlooked. A striking example of the problems performance factors
pose for the understanding of how language works is provided by center
embedding phenomena. Center embedding arises due to multiple recursion of
linguistic structure and is well known in syntax (Chomsky 1957; Chomsky and
Miller 1963; Miller and Chomsky 1963, Miller and Isard 1964 etc.)
11
.
An example of center embedding sentence is represented by the English
sentence # The rat the cat the dog chased ate died.
12
This sentence is perfectly
grammatical in the sense that no rule of English syntax (i.e. competence) is
violated. Yet most speakers consider the sentence hard, if not impossible to
process altogether, most probably due to performance factors such as memory
span limitations that lead to processing difficulty.
Center embedding phenomena show that performance factors, traditionally
regarded as marginal in classical generative linguistics, need to be paid due
attention, as they may cast doubt on the unbounded applicability of grammatical
rules. Ultimately, it may be the case that language use (performance) can lead to
shaping grammars in the direction of performance preferences, as advocated by
Hawkins (1994, 2003, 2004). This issue will be dealt with in §5, in relation to the
account offered for the connection between grammatical and phonological
markedness.
11
For a recent general discussion of center embedding and numerous references, see Uehara
(2003).
12
The symbol # shows that the sentence is hard to process.
34
Functional factors like minimization of effort in perception and production
have been shown to form the underpinnings of other rules, such as heavy
(complex) NP shift (CNPS), a process whereby a complex noun phrase direct
object undergoes extraposition over a prepositional phrase and moves to the right
(Ross 1967, Postal 1974, Culicover 1976, 1984 etc.).
A performance factor that has been shown to systematically correlate with
grammatical or inflectional markedness is the frequency of occurrence of forms as
measured in linguistic corpora. In recent years, frequency has often been
considered the most important criterion for grammatical markedness.
The correlation between morphologically-marked forms and their
frequency of occurrence has been noted since the early days of linguistic typology.
As pointed out by Greenberg (1966a:32), the frequency of occurrence of words
inflected for Number, as measured in the Sanskrit, Latin, Russian and French
corpora considered for analysis, decreases from the (unmarked) Singular to the
(marked) Dual. The sense in which frequency of occurrence correlates with
grammatical markedness is that the higher a category ranks on a markedness
hierarchy, the lower its frequency of occurrence:
(21) Table 3 Frequencies of occurrence of Number category values
Language Size of Sample Singular Plural Dual
Sanskrit 93,277 70.3 25.1 4.6
Latin (Terence) 8,342 85.2 14.8 N/A
Russian 8,194 77.7 22.3 N/A
French 1,000 74.3 25.7 N/A
35
Greenberg measured the frequency of occurrence of other categories (Case,
Person, Number and Voice in verbs etc.) and obtained similar correlations with
grammatical markedness, as exemplified in (22) - (25) below:
(22) Table 4 Frequencies of occurrence of Case category values
Language Size of Sample Direct Case Oblique Case
Sanskrit 93,277 72.5 27.5
Latin 8,342 68.7 31.3
Russian 6,194 65.2 34.8
(23) Table 5 Frequencies of occurrence of Person category values
Language Size of Sample 3
rd
person 1
st
person 2
nd
person
Sanskrit 93,277 54.1 11.3 34.6
Latin 8,342 45.3 29.3 25.4
Russian 6,194 50.4 31.9 17.7
(24) Table 6 Frequencies of occurrence of Voice category values
Language Active (%) Passive (%)
Latin 90.2 9.8
Sanskrit 73.1 26.9
(25) Table 7 Frequencies of occurrence of Tense category values
Language Present (%) Past (%) Future (%)
Sanskrit 53.6 46.3 0.1
Latin 62.1 26.6 11.3
The sample sizes in (22) and (23) refer to the total number of words in the
stretch of language considered for analysis. Frequencies of occurrence of
individual members of grammatical categories are calculated as percentage values
36
for words inflected for the relevant grammatical category. For example, for the
category of Number, in a language with a three-way Singular-Plural-Dual system,
the frequency of occurrence of the Singular is represented by the percentage ratio
of words inflected for the Singular over the total number of words inflected for
Number, and similarly for the Plural and Dual. For extinct languages like Latin
and Sanskrit, since no spoken language data are available, frequency was
estimated based on written corpora. For other languages, frequency values were
measured using transcripts of conversations, speeches and fictional prose of
various genres. Ideally, the frequency of occurrence of grammatical categories
should be computed on corpora of spoken language that include transcripts from
various stylistic registers (for the methodology of spoken corpus design, see
Svartvik 1990 and Atkins, Clear and Ostler 1992).
An important issue that requires clarification is the variation of frequency
values across individual speakers and registers. Such variations do exist (see Biber
1993 for the importance of considering such variation in corpus studies), so it is
important to determine to what extent frequency values measured on a particular
stretch of language represent reliable parameters on the basis of which
grammatical markedness can be assessed.
While there may be certain degrees of variation with respect to the
frequency of individual elements across styles, individuals or language use
situations, the frequency data for a given linguistic system can be said to hold as
relatively fixed. To see in what sense one can talk about the ‘fixedness’ of
37
frequency values of grammatical categories, consider the behavior of negative
versus affirmative constructions in English. Givón (1993) measured the frequency
of occurrence of English negative clauses in several type of style varieties. At one
end of the style continuum represented by fictional varieties of language, he found
that negative clauses represent about 12% of all clauses. At the other end of the
continuum (academic varieties), Givón found only 5% of clauses to be negative.
The frequency of occurrence of negatives in other stylistic varieties, as measured
on language corpora, ranges between 5 and 12%. If we examine these results, we
note that despite the higher frequency of (grammatically marked) negatives in the
fictional domain as compared to the one in the academic register, (grammatically
unmarked) affirmative clauses remain overwhelmingly more frequent as compared
to their negative counterparts, irrespective of the language variety considered. In
general, although frequency values can vary across speakers, registers or
situations, the ratio of marked over unmarked categories is skewed in favor of
unmarked ones. This ‘statistic invariant’ behavior renders negative constructions a
marked morpho-syntactic status as compared to their affirmative counterparts. It is
in this sense that the ‘fixedness’ of frequency parameters in a linguistic system is
understood in this dissertation.
The data in (22) - (25) show that the frequency of occurrence of a
grammatical category as measured in linguistic corpora follows the same tendency
as its ranking on the relevant grammatical markedness hierarchy (see (19) above).
Similar results were obtained on Czech, German and Russian by Ku čera and
38
Monroe (1968). In the case study on Number in Romanian (Chapter 5) I computed
the frequency of occurrence of number-inflected nominals in a sample of fictional
prose. The results are comparable to the ones obtained by Greenberg (1966a) for
other languages.
Frequency of usage is a facet of language use that has emerged in recent
years as one of the most robust criteria for grammatical markedness
13
. Research on
markedness effects in morpho-syntax has lead to the idea that the very term
‘markedness’ can be to a large extent replaced by ‘frequency’ (Werner 1989;
Fenk-Oczlon 1991, 2001; Haspelmath 2005). An essentially similar approach to
phonological markedness is taken by Gurevich (2001), Hume (2004) and Blevins
(2004), who question the status of markedness as a primitive notion and emphasize
the role of language use and predictability in shaping grammatical or phonological
hierarchies.
Advocates of the frequentionist view of markedness maintain that the
frequency of use of linguistic forms reflects the cognitive costs involved in their
processing. Forms with high frequency of use presuppose more familiarity and
predictability on part of the speaker/hearer and involve a minimization of the
processing load on the human processor
14
.
At the same time, frequency of occurrence represents a corollary of
economy in language use. The idea of ‘economy’ has long been shown to play a
13
Frequency of occurrence has been used to elucidate cases of semantic markedness that were
considered ambiguous according to other criteria (Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1995).
14
See §5.1 for a discussion of the issue of effort minimization and economy.
39
role in shaping morphological patterns, the general principle being that linguistic
expressions should be kept to a minimum whenever possible, thus contributing to
a minimization of the processing burden placed on the speaker-hearer. Economy in
language use is encapsulated in the Principle of Least Effort (see Zipf 1949); more
recently, further evidence for similar claims in phonetics was brought by
Ladefoged (1982) and Lindblom (1990). In syntax, the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1995) acknowledges economy as one of the fundamental principles of
grammar.
As shown as early as by Zipf (1949), the connection between economy and
frequency can be informally stated as a statistically significant tendency for
expressions that contain less material (or are, in general, structurally less complex)
to occur more frequently than forms that are more complex or are ‘bulkier’ in
point of expression.
The empirical adequacy of the economy-frequency approach has been
tested on a number of phenomena that otherwise constituted notable exceptions to
predictions of grammatical hierarchies that do not take language use into account,
as we shall see in the following section.
1.2.3 Markedness reversals as a consequence of frequency effects
An important area of success of the frequentionist stand is represented by its
ability of account for apparently problematic instances of so-called ‘markedness
reversals’ (Mayerthaler 1981, Tiersma 1982, Croft 1990). The phenomenon in
40
question is seen in situations where categories that are assumed to be
grammatically unmarked show an unusual behavior and have overt coding, while
the marked counterparts have zero coding.
For example, in Welsh the Singular of some nouns is characterized by an
overt suffix, but the corresponding Plural has null marking, as in plu-en
Sg.
‘feather’
versus plu-Ø
Pl
‘feathers’. Similarly, we sometimes unexpectedly see overt coding
in the third person of the Imperative and, in contrast, null marking in the second
person of the same mood, as in Latin lauda-to
3rd
(‘let him/her praise!’) versus
lauda-Ø
2nd
(‘praise!’). In a theory where grammatical categories represent entities
arranged in a universally fixed order on a grammatical or inflectional hierarchy
such phenomena seem to be hard to accommodate. However, if we consider the
functional, frequency-motivated underpinnings of such reversals, the effects no
longer appear exceptional
15
.
It is worth noting that most often these cases have a semantic or pragmatic
basis; for example in nouns denoting entities that naturally occur in groups or
pairs, it is the Plural that is (locally) unmarked, as the category which occurs with
higher relative frequency. Similarly, in the Imperative, the second person qualifies
as the unmarked/default category, since it encodes the addressee of an utterance,
and accordingly it occurs more frequently than the third person. The null marking
of the more frequent forms is thus in accordance with economy in language use.
15
It should be mentioned that markedness reversal phenomena can be dealt with in the constraint-
based framework provided by Optimality Theory. For an illustration, see the discussion of the
Hebrew root-affix asymmetry in Hebrew in §4.2
41
Along similar lines, Tiersma (1982), who discusses a considerable number
of markedness reversals (in Spanish, English, German, Dutch etc.), formulates the
following principle:
(26) When the referent of a noun naturally occurs in pairs or groups, and/ or
when it is generally referred to collectively, such a noun is unmarked in the
plural. (Tiersma 1982:835)
Instances of (apparently exceptional) markedness reversals can be easily
predicted in a theory of markedness that relies on economy and frequency of use.
If a principle of economy is assumed to play a relevant role in language use
(‘performance’), it is possible for a category that is more frequent in point of use
(like the Plural of nouns designating entities that occur in pairs or groups) to be apt
to receive less expression than the less frequent category.
In this dissertation I assume a similar mechanism to be responsible for the
correlation between inflectional markedness and phonological behavior. In (27)
below a statement of the pivotal generalization made in this dissertation is given:
(27) If g
1
and g
2
are members of the grammatical category G such that g
2
ranks
higher than g
1
on the grammatical markedness hierarchy (g
2
> g
1
), outputs
inflected for g
2
can sponsor marked phonological structure to an extent that
is equal or greater than g
1
(the unmarked term), as a reflection of the
economy principle in language use.
42
The generalization in (27) will be fleshed out in Chapter 3 §4. Informally,
if a term has a high frequency of occurrence (due to conceptual, cognitive and
pragmatic factors), economy dictates that language users will prefer to avoid
marked phonological structure in that term. In grammatically marked items,
marked phonological structure is allowed, as its presence is relatively less costly in
point of language economy (occurrence in fewer items).
Before discussing the above claim in more detail, let us consider possible
correlations between grammatical markedness and the phonological behavior of
the respective forms. Economy suggests that such a correlation may be established
with phonological bulk or size.
2. Towards a correlation between grammatical markedness and phonology: size
In keeping with the principle of economy discussed in the previous section, one
may expect that marked grammatical categories (which have a relatively low
frequency of occurrence) are likely to receive less phonological expression than
their more frequent, less marked counterparts.
To adapt an everyday example due to Haspelmath (2003), consider phone
numbers in the Los Angeles area, which has three area codes: 213, 310 and 323,
and where a complete phone number is of the form 213-XXX-XXXX, 310-XXX-
XXXX or 323-XXX-XXXX. If a full number is necessary for successful
communication in the greater area, which is diverse, people living in the same
neighborhood can leave out the area code, which is both predictable and highly
43
frequent, thus making economy possible. Moreover, people living in the same
building can afford to omit both the area code and the first three digits of the
phone number (the exchange), for similar reasons. Therefore the more frequent
(and predictable) a form is, the more likely it is to receive less expression and to be
of less size.
Research on economy and morphological coding of grammatical categories
has shown that Haspelmath’s ‘phone number model’ can be illustrated by the
behavior of grammatical categories in natural languages.
Considerations of economy have lead Haiman (1983) to state a
generalization on the size of Case forms that is in line with the status of Case
values on the grammatical markedness hierarchy:
(28) In no language will the phonological expression of a direct case
[nominative/accusative] be bulkier than that of the corresponding indirect
case [dative/locative/instrumental etc.] (Haiman 1983:792)
A straightforward example for Haiman’s generalization comes from
Turkish, a language with a rich Case system. In Turkish, the Nominative has zero
inflectional marking, the Accusative is characterized by the suffix -i and the
Locative, by the affix -de (Lewis 2000), as shown below for the relevant Case
hierarchy:
44
(29) Locative > Accusative > Nominative
ev-Ø ‘house-Nom.’
ev-i ‘house-Acc.’
ev-de ‘house-Loc.’
Haiman states that his generalization is confirmed in a variety of languages
(Walpiri, Greenlandic Eskimo, Kalkatungu, Hungarian and Indo-European
(French, German, Russian)). Although the claim is credible in light of the
economy principle that demands that frequent, unmarked forms, be less ‘bulky’
than infrequent, marked ones, the demonstration lacks the support of a language
sampling technique that would make statistically significant the result according to
which marked categories are bulkier than unmarked ones. Also, the generalization
covers only the grammatical category of Case; it is not clear whether it could carry
onto other morpho-syntactic categories.
The relation between grammatical markedness and phonological
expression instantiated by size is also discussed in a recent study by Brunner
(2003). Brunner undertook to test the prediction made by Dryer (p.c., cited in Croft
2003) according to which the less marked value of a grammatical category should
be no longer phonologically than the more marked category (‘length’ being
estimated as segment or syllable count in inflected outputs). Brunner tested
Dryer’s prediction for the category of Number on a sample consisting of 42
languages, compiled following the sampling method in Dryer (1989, 1992).
45
For the category of Number, the prototypical situation in a three-way
(Singular, Plural, Dual) system is the one in a language like Yimas (Foley 1991),
with null marking in the Singular, and non-null marking in the Plural and Dual,
with more phonological material in the Dual:
(30) Dual > Plural > Singular
yura-Ø ‘dog’
yura-y ‘dogs’
yura-ntrm ‘two dogs’
With respect to segment count, the analysis found that in nouns the
Singular was longer than the Plural only in 8% of the languages, and the Singular
and the Plural never exceeded the Dual. Comparable results were obtained for
Number in other lexical categories (verbs, adjectives, pronouns). When
phonological size was expressed as syllable count, there were no exceptions, and
the marked category was always equal to or longer than the unmarked one.
The size correlation between grammatical markedness and phonological
form is also attested for grammatical categories other than Case and Number
(Tense, Mood, Gender etc.)
16
. However, the quantitative approach to the
correlation between grammatical markedness and phonological properties is faced
with a number of problems.
16
See Haspelmath (2003) and Newmeyer (1998) for examples.
46
First, as already noted, studies need to be based on reliable language
samples, a desideratum that is not always met (see Dryer 1989, 1992 for the
importance of language sampling in linguistic typology). Second, and more
importantly, the correlations represent statistical tendencies rather than categorical
results, and although they are significant in a number of cases, exceptions do exist.
The theory should be able to account for such exceptions, but explanations do not
readily suggest themselves (markedness reversal solutions are not always
available). For example, Limbu (Tibeto-Burman, van Driem 1987) distinguishes
between a zero-marked Singular and a suffix-marked Plural and Dual. In Limbu,
the Plural suffix consists of three segments, while the Dual suffix has only two.
Barring other phonological adjustments in number affixation that would delete
material from the stem, the overall segment count of the Plural is higher than both
the Singular and Dual segment counts:
(31) Number affixes in Limbu
Singular: -Ø
Plural: -ha
Dual: -si
Similarly, English verbs take the -s suffix in the 3
rd
person of the Present
Indicative, while the 1
st
and 2
nd
persons have zero marking, while in point of
47
grammatical markedness the 3
rd
person is the least marked member of the category
of Person.
Third, analyses based on phonological size are bound to be confronted with
a confounding factor that is hard to tease out. This factor is represented by
morphological complexity expressed by the property of structural coding already
discussed in §1.1. As we have seen, marked members of grammatical categories
are prototypically characterized by higher morpheme counts than the unmarked
members. As morphemes typically consist of segments or syllables, it is to be
expected that categories with a higher morpheme count will also have a higher
segment or syllable count, which makes it difficult to disentangle the effect on
morphology from the one on phonology. For example, the English plural ‘dogs’
has a higher segment count than the singular form ‘dog’, but it is hard to tell
whether this is the result of the Plural form having a higher count of non-null
morphemes that come with their own segmental material or it is just an
independent property of the (marked) Plural to be inherently bulkier that the
(unmarked) Singular. Also, especially when inflection is expressed by affixation, it
may be the case that affixes have different lexical shapes or allomorphs, and while
it is true that considerations of frequency or economy can help explain surface
distributions, there is no universally valid account for both regular behaviors (more
phonological material in the less marked category) and apparent exceptions
(smaller size of the marked category).
48
It appears therefore that a reliable account of the correlation between
grammatical markedness and phonological properties has to take into
consideration situations where the phonological properties of inflected forms are
comparable to a certain extent (and yet different), so that the phonological
differences could be attributed to language use factors such as frequency of
occurrence or economy.
Consider, for an illustration of the complexity of the issues that the analysis
is confronted with, the marking of the Infinitive and Causative in Somali (Saeed
1993, Bendjaballah 1998). Somali does not involve differences in size between the
two categories, whose forms are underlying identical (/i/). Nevertheless, when
suffixed to a base (formally identical to the Imperative), the Causative marker
triggers affrication of the final (velar) stop (32a.), while the Infinitive morpheme
does not (32b.):
(32) The behavior of the Causative and Infinitive in Somali
a. Palatalization of the final velar segment of the stem in the Causative:
noog ‘be tired-Imper.’
noog+i
Caus.
→ noot i ‘cause to be tired’
b. Infinitive /i/ does not trigger palatalization of the velar:
noog+i
Inf.
→ noogi ‘to be tired’
49
The Somali case is one where similar phonological material finds a
different expression in outputs that represent different grammatical categories. As
Bendjaballah (1998) points out, with respect to morphological constituency
(morpheme boundaries, number of morphemes) the two forms similar. The
respective differences can hardly be attributed to the phonology of Somali alone,
and their source lies most probably in some other property of the morphological
system.
Cases like Somali potentially represent the ground where hypotheses on the
correlation between morphological and phonological properties can be tested.
However, there are no accounts in the linguistic typology literature on the relative
grammatical markedness of the Causative and the Infinitive, but it is worth noting
that the Causative is cross-linguistically a marked category (Haiman 1983).
Although there is no difference in size between the Somali Causative and the
Infinitive in point of segment or syllable count, it can be seen that the formation of
the Causative leads a kind of marked phonological structure as compared to the
Infinitive (affricate versus stop). As an additional complication, it is not entirely
clear that the Causative is the phonologically marked form. One may argue that the
presence of a plain stop before the front vowel [i] in the Infinitive can also be
regarded as some kind of marked phonological structure. At the same time, along
another dimension, a voiced obstruent is deemed more marked than a voiceless
one.
50
Although not entirely conclusive, the Somali data are helpful in previewing
the research agenda that this dissertation addresses. Recall that the claim put forth
in this dissertation is that inflectional (grammatical) markedness has a
phonological correlate, in that other things equal, categories that are grammatically
marked are characterized by the presence of marked phonological material to an
extent that is higher or equal than in the unmarked categories, a generalization that
I label ‘Marked in the Marked’ (MIM).
It is important to note that the comparison between the phonological shape
of outputs inflected for asymmetrically marked categories is relevant only to the
extent to which the morpho-phonological markers employed are relatively similar.
The Somali case does meet the similarity criterion, since the Infinitive and
Causative affixes are both underlying /i/), but the MIM hypothesis cannot be tested
due to the facts mentioned above (impossibility to compare the Infinitive and
Causative in point of grammatical markedness and also difficulty in assessing the
degree of markedness of phonological structure).
To see how important the similarity criterion is, consider the case of
Hessian German Plural formation (Golston and Wiese 1996).
In Hessian German there is a class of nouns that form their Plural by
apparent deletion of the final consonant of the root if it ends in an obstruent:
51
(33) Singular Plural Gloss
hond hon ‘dog’
nd n ‘end’
k ‘shoe’
vk v ‘way’
Hessian German Plural formation seems to contradict the claim according
to which the category ranking higher on the grammatical markedness hierarchy
(Plural) displays more marked phonological structure than the lower-ranking
category (Singular). Indeed, as the data in (33) show, if the Singular has a complex
coda, the corresponding Plural has a simple coda, or, even more dramatically, if
the Singular has a closed syllable, the Plural has an open one
17
. This behavior
would constitute a counterexample to the MIM generalization.
Nevertheless, Golston and Wiese’s examination of Hessian German’s
inflectional system shows that what is at first sight subtractive morphology is in
fact a means of satisfying a requirement that Plural forms end in a segment that
carries the [+sonorant] feature (the Singular is represented by the bare root, and no
such requirement is enforced)
18
. Plural formation by apparent subtraction is only a
strategy whereby final sonorancy is satisfied; final consonant deletion in the Plural
17
As we shall see in §3.1, complex codas and closed syllables are more marked phonologically
than simple codas and open syllables, respectively.
18
Furthermore, Golston and Wiese (1996) suggest that the Plural formative is the [+sonorant]
floating feature that needs to be aligned to the right edge of the prosodic word.
52
may just be a bi-product of suffixation of [+sonorant]. In fact, as Stonham (1994)
points out, inflectional non-concatenative morphology (including subtraction) is in
most cases an instance of concealed affixation and has no independent status in
morphological theory. In sum, Hessian German employs different strategies for
expressing the Singular and the Plural. The fact that the Plural is less marked
phonologically than the Singular cannot be used to falsify the MIM generalization,
which is assumed only for forms with relatively similar morphological marking.
This is not the case in Hessian German, where the Singular has a zero marker and
the Plural, a subsegmental [+sonorant] affix.
So far we have reviewed the notion of grammatical or inflectional
markedness and we have discussed two widely accepted criteria for this kind of
markedness, structural coding and frequency of occurrence as measured in
corpora. Grammatical markedness hierarchies were introduced as an expression of
structural coding. We have seen that frequency of occurrence is superior to other
criteria such as iconicity and can help explain markedness reversals phenomena.
Also, I introduced the Marked in the Marked generalization and I have shown that
the correlation between grammatical markedness and the phonological properties
of outputs inflected for the respective grammatical categories is not one of mere
size, but rather one that has to do with the phonological markedness of those
outputs.
Having established the substantive content of inflectional markedness and
having previewed its connection with the phonology, we can now proceed to
53
discuss in more detail the notion of phonological markedness. The more specific
issue of how markedness is dealt with in Optimality Theory (Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004), which constitutes the theoretical framework assumed for
the analysis, will be discussed in Chapter 3.
3. Criteria for phonological markedness
Since the main claim of this dissertation involves the notion of ‘phonological
markedness’, it is important to first establish what criteria can be employed in
assessing it.
In a survey of markedness in phonology, Rice (2003) lists a number of
criteria that can be used to characterize marked versus unmarked oppositions in
phonology:
(34) Table 8 Marked versus unmarked oppositions
Marked Unmarked
Less natural Natural
More complex Simpler
More specific More general
Less common More common
Unexpected Expected
Not basic Basic
Less stable Stable
Appear in few grammars Appear in more grammars
Later in language acquisition Earlier in language acquisition
Subject to neutralization Neutralization targets
Early loss in language deficit Late loss in language deficit
Implies unmarked feature Implies marked feature
Harder to articulate Easier to articulate
Perceptually more salient Perceptually less salient
54
To the criteria reviewed by Rice we can add the one of predictability within
a particular phonological system, as claimed by Hume (2004), who proceeds to a
deconstruction of the notion ‘markedness’ in phonology and claims that it is not a
primitive of linguistic description.
It appears that phonological markedness is a multifaceted property. Also,
there is no consensus in the literature as to exactly how many of the properties in
(34) a phonological structure should have in order to qualify as (relatively)
marked. One may also wonder whether there is some ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ in the
concept of markedness, so that forms that have the ‘core’ properties can be
considered marked.
Among the many possible diagnostics for phonological markedness I will
discuss two that are relatively uncontroversial: complexity and occurrence in
phonological inventories.
3.1 Phonological markedness as complexity
Despite the difficulties in approaching phonological markedness that I hinted at
above, many researchers believe that phonological markedness is robustly
correlated with complexity. Phonological markedness can be viewed as
complexity from a structural or articulatory point of view.
Structural complexity has been adopted as a criterion for markedness in a
number of studies (Dresher and Rice 1993, Dyck 1993, 1995, Ghini 1993, 2001,
55
Dresher, Piggott and Rice 1994, Dresher and van der Hulst 1998, Rice and Avery
2004 etc.).
As noted by Dresher and Rice (1993), the notion of phonological
complexity is relevant and can manifest itself at various levels.
For instance, at the segmental level, the ability of units to participate in
phonological processes varies as a function of their internal (featural) complexity
or makeup. Markedness can be said to be encoded in the representation of
segments and increases with the amount of structure. A similar claim is made by
Rice and Avery (1995).
Dresher and van der Hulst (1998) use the same kind of argument in
discussing the relation between vowel distribution and segment complexity in a
number of languages. As an illustration, in Russian strong (stressed) syllables can
have one of the five vowels [i, u, e, o, a] as a nucleus, but in weak (unstressed)
syllables only [i, u, a] can occur as nuclei. The authors correlate this kind of
distribution with the relative degree of complexity in vocalic segments, according
to the representations in (35), which view vowels as combinations of particles or
elements in the spirit of theories that employ unary features, like Particle
Phonology (Schane 1984) or Government Phonology (Kaye, Lowenstamm and
Vergnaud 1985):
56
(35) Vowel structure (after Dresher and van der Hulst 1998)
i u a e o
• • • • •
| | | 2 2
front round low front low round low
According to this metric, the relatively less complex vowels [i, u, a] are
less marked than [e, o].
Segment complexity is also acknowledged in autosegmental
representations. For example, Clements (1985) represents consonants with a
secondary articulation by subordinating a V-Place node corresponding to the
secondary articulation to a consonant’s C-Place node:
(36) a. C b. C c. C d. C e. C
| | | | |
C-Pl C-Pl C-Pl C-Pl C-Pl
2 2 2 2 |
coronal V-Pl coronal V-Pl coronal V-Pl coronal V-Pl coronal
| | | |
labial coronal dorsal pharyngeal
[t
w
] [t
j
] [t
] [t
] [t]
According to the representations in (36) above, consonants with a
secondary articulation (36a. - d.) are more complex (and consequently, more
marked) than the one with only a primary place of articulation (36e.). For complex
segments involving place features see also Sagey (1986/1990).
57
Segment complexity relates markedness and the internal makeup of units
of analysis at the same level of representation. Complexity effects can also be
noted at various levels of representation, for example with respect to the Prosodic
Hierarchy (Selkirk 1980, McCarthy and Prince 1986):
(37) Figure 3 Prosodic Hierarchy
Prosodic Word
|
Foot
|
Syllable
|
Mora
What is relevant for the correlation between complexity and phonological
markedness is the constituency of a category, not necessarily the place of that
category on the Prosodic Hierarchy. Thus at the syllable level closed CVC
syllables are more marked than open CV syllables, heavy (bimoraic) syllables are
more marked than light (monomoraic) syllables etc. (see Dresher and van der
Hulst (1998) for a review of phonological complexity that correlates with levels of
prosodic structure)
19
. A similar relation holds for bimoraic versus monomoraic
syllables.
Articulatory and/or perceptual complexity has also been shown to closely
correlate with phonological markedness. The idea of articulatory or perceptual
19
Closed syllables differ in structure from open syllables at the root node. There may also be
differences in moraic structure.
58
grounding of phonological markedness is by no means new and can be seen as
early as in the work of Trubetzkoy (1931), who regards articulatory complexity as
an essential criterion of phonological markedness.
More recently, the relative markedness of a various segment classes has
been correlated with articulatory complexity by Chomsky and Halle (1968),
Lindblom and Maddieson (1988), Willerman (1994) etc. According to Chomsky
and Halle, a class of segments is marked because it is harder to articulate in
comparison with a class that is easier to articulate (unmarked). For example, a
retroflex sound is considered more marked than an apical alveolar or a dental
because retroflexes involve a raising and displacement of the tongue tip towards
the post-alveolar region, whereas an apical alveolar involves only a tongue tip
raising (Hamann 2003). Similar observations have been made for other instances
of segmental markedness, like clicks in relation to consonants articulated with a
pulmonic airstream mechanism (Engstrand 1997) or palatalized consonants in
relation to plain consonants (Ní Chiosáin and Padgett 2001, Zygis 2004). With
respect to the articulatory complexity of palatalized consonants (discussed in this
dissertation in Chapter 5, in relation to Number expression in Romanian), they
have been shown to be articulatory complex because they involve the
superimposition of an [i]-like gesture upon a labial, dental, alveolar or post-
alveolar (velar) consonant (Ladefoged 1971, Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996).
More generally, the phonetic and psycholinguistic underpinnings of
phonological markedness as well as their optimality-theoretic implementations
59
have been highlighted by Flemming (1995), Steriade (1995c), Boersma (1998),
Hayes (1999) and many others
20
. Within a pre-OT framework, the issue is
addressed by Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994).
To conclude the discussion of complexity as a criterion for phonological
markedness, it should be mentioned that structural and articulatory complexity
often correlates with perceptual difficulty. There is a sizable body of evidence that
points to the correlation between perceptual difficulty and phonological
markedness (see, among others, Flemming (1995), Steriade (1997, 2001),
Beckman (1998/1999), Boersma (1998), Kirchner (1998), Haspelmath (1999),
Hayes (1999), Côté (2000), Pierrehumbert (2000), Bye (2001), Smith (2002/2005),
Curtin (2002), Padgett (2003ab), Hume (2004), Walker (2005) and the
contributions in Hayes, Kirchner and Steriade (2004)). As an expression of the
correlation between markedness and perceptual difficulty, unmarked phonological
structures, which are relatively easy to perceive due to rich perceptual cues, tend to
occur in more words than marked phonological structures, characterized by weaker
perceptual cues (Hume 2004). The importance of the perceptual difficulty criterion
for phonological markedness is also highlighted by the fact that perception and
production often go hand in hand, in that marked elements, which are perceptually
difficult, may require more extreme articulation to improve their perceptibility,
and conversely, reducing articulatory effort often threatens perceptual distinctness.
Also, the neural systems supporting speech perception and speech production
20
Interestingly, in sign languages a correlation was recently noted between the complexity of hand
shapes (‘ease of articulation’) and frequency of occurrence (‘markedness’) (Ann 2006).
60
partially overlap in the superior temporal lobe, as shown by Hickok and Poeppel
(2000) and Hickok (2001).
A second, widely used diagnostic for markedness in phonology is the
frequency of occurrence in grammars or inventories across languages, a topic
which will be addressed in the following section.
3.2 Phonological markedness as (non-)occurrence in inventories
As in the case of grammatical markedness, frequency of occurrence within
individual languages or in inventories has been shown to correlate with
phonological markedness. The observation, made as early as in the studies of
Jakobson (1932/1984, 1939/1984), Trubetzkoy (1939/1969) or Greenberg (1966a),
is that marked phonological material at various levels of representation (features,
segments, syllables etc.) occurs less frequently in inventories than unmarked
material.
Greenberg (1966a) discusses complex articulations (glottalization,
palatalization) in a number of languages, including Hausa, Klamath, Coos, Yurok,
Chiricahua, Maidu and Russian, and he finds that segments with secondary
articulation are significantly less frequent than plain sounds. Long versus short
vowels in Icelandic, Sanskrit, Czech, Hungarian, Finnish, Karok and Chiricahua
follow the same statistical tendency, and so do nasal vowels, as opposed to non-
nasals.
61
As to occurrence in inventories, there is a similar statistical tendency for
unmarked structure to occur in more individual inventories than marked material.
The table in (38), compiled by Clements (2004) on the basis of the UPSID
database (Maddieson 1984, Maddieson and Precoda 1989) illustrates this behavior
for consonant features:
(38) Table 9 Unmarked versus marked consonant features
all languages have: some languages lack: marked feature
21
obstruent consonants sonorant consonants [+sonorant]
coronal consonants labial, dorsal, pharyngeal or
laryngeal consonants
[labial], [dorsal],
[pharyngeal] etc.
oral consonants nasal consonants [+nasal]
stop consonants continuant consonants [+continuant]
unaspirated stops aspirated consonants [spread glottis]
non-glottalized stops glottalized stops [constricted glottis]
anterior coronal stops posterior coronal stops [+posterior]
non-strident coronals strident coronals [+strident]
simple consonants consonants with secondary
articulations
features of
secondary
articulation
With respect to the presence/absence of certain items, the categories which
some languages lack in (38) might be for just a particular counterpart of an
element in the categories that they have. For instance a language might have [g]
but lack a velar nasal, and at the same time show stop/nasal pairs at bilabial and
alveolar points of articulation.
21
I am not necessarily committed to this particular version of features. The ‘marked feature’
column serves nevertheless our demonstration purposes.
62
Of course, a statistical approach per se does not explain why some
segments are more frequent than others, but has the empirical advantage of relating
markedness to observable parameters, such as frequency distributions.
It should also be noted that frequency of occurrence in phonological
inventories does not necessarily coincide with the frequency of occurrence of the
relevant phonological structures in individual languages. An example for this
difference is provided by Arabic, where the coronal voiceless stop /t/, although
relatively unmarked cross-linguistically and present in a large number of
inventories, is found only in a small number of words (Pierrehumbert 2003)
22
.
Given the diversity of diagnostics proposed for phonological markedness,
the task of correlating it with grammatical markedness is by no means an easy one.
In the case studies presented in this thesis I discuss instances of phonological
markedness that are uncontroversial: uneven moraic trochees in Old Saxon
(Chapter 4), palatalized consonants in Romanian (Chapter 5) and intervocalic
voiceless stops in Mayak (Chapter 6). In each of the cases the phonological
markedness of the relevant structure is assessed and the two criteria for
phonological markedness discussed in this chapter (complexity and occurrence in
inventories) are discussed.
Since the theoretical framework assumed for the dissertation is Optimality
Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), a word is in place at this point about
22
This seems at odds with Greenberg’s statistical observations. It should be noted, however, that
Greenberg’s correlations were established for phonological features (features of secondary
articulation, length, nasality etc.), not necessarily for individual segments in inventories.
63
the way in which markedness is addressed in OT. Unlike approaches to
markedness that capitalize upon phonetic or representational facts, in OT there is
only one way to show that a structure is marked, namely to show that there exists a
markedness constraint against that structure and that employing the markedness
constraint leads to the right typological predictions (see McCarthy 2002 for a
discussion of markedness in OT versus Prague School markedness). For example,
(HL) uneven trochees are marked as there is a constraint *(HL) that prohibits
them
23
. I will return to the issue of markedness in OT in Chapter 3.
3.3 Summary: grammatical and phonological markedness
So far we have determined reviewed the most important diagnostics proposed for
grammatical and phonological markedness. For grammatical markedness structural
coding and frequency of occurrence in language corpora have emerged as the most
reliable criteria, in the sense that marked categories are characterized by at least as
much inflectional coding as the unmarked ones and have a lower frequency of
occurrence than their unmarked counterparts.
Since we will be testing the Marked in the Marked generalization, which
was stated for forms that have relative similar phonological expression of their
inflectional markers, the frequency criterion turns out to be the essential trait of
grammatical markedness. In general, for a grammatical category G with g
1
and g
2
23
See Chapter 4 for a discussion of uneven trochees as marked phonological structure. Constraints
against uneven trochees have been proposed by Prince (1990), Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004)
and Kager (1993, 1995).
64
as its members, if g
1
and g
2
are expressed by similar phonological markers and g
2
has a lower frequency of occurrence than g
1
, g
2
is more marked than g
1
. For
instance, in Romanian masculine and neuter nominals the expression of Number is
represented by a high vowel suffix (/u/ in the Singular and /i/ in the Plural),
although the Singular affix is not always expressed in outputs. Plural forms are
less frequent in point of occurrence (along the lines of Greenberg 1966a)
24
, which
makes the Plural (g
2
) more marked than the Singular (g
1
). For the purpose of the
MIM hypothesis, grammatical (inflectional) markedness is essentially reducible to
a variable of language use represented by frequency of occurrence of expressions.
For the purpose of this dissertation, the main criteria for phonological
markedness are complexity (in structural and articulatory terms, and correlated
with perceptual difficulty) and relative frequency of occurrence in phonological
inventories across languages.
For each of the phonological structures (M) involved in the illustration of
MIM it will be shown that the structure in question meets these criteria. In addition
to that, since the theoretical framework assumed in the thesis is Optimality Theory,
OT markedness constraints against M (*M) will be defined. The criteria of
complexity and occurrence in inventories represent a way in which *M constraints
are grounded in structural, articulatory or language use factors.
So far, we have determined the basic content of the notions of grammatical
and phonological markedness and we have seen what problems are raised by the
24
See also our own text statistics in Chapter 5.
65
connection between them. We are now in a position to take a first step in testing
the Marked in the Marked hypothesis. We have also seen (§2) that if there is a
correlation between grammatical markedness and phonological properties, the
correlation is not necessarily one of phonological size. Since frequency of
occurrence has been shown to be the most reliable correlate of grammatical
markedness such that marked categories are also less frequent tokenwise, we can
paraphrase MIM as the ‘Marked in the Infrequent’. In the following section I will
discuss possible phonological correlates of frequency in open versus closed class
categories and affixes versus roots.
4. Frequency of occurrence and phonological markedness
4.1. Open versus closed class categories
A fertile ground for testing the correlation between phonological markedness and
frequency of occurrence in actual speech is provided by the behavior of open and
closed class word categories. It is well known that open class categories (also
known as ‘lexical’ or ‘substantive’: nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.) have a lower
frequency of occurrence than closed class categories (‘grammatical’ or
‘functional’: pronouns, determiners, auxiliaries, certain prepositions etc.)
25
.
In many languages, low-frequency, open-class categories are more prone to
contain marked phonological material than high-frequency, closed class
categories.
25
See Ku čera and Francis (1967) for a comprehensive study of word frequency in contemporary
American English.
66
Observations of this sort have been made in the literature in the last several
decades. As regards segmental markedness, Swadesh (1971) remarks that in
languages having clicks
26
as part of their phonological inventory, these sounds are
part of ordinary verbs, nouns, and adjectives (lexical, open-class items), but not of
demonstratives, pronouns, and particles (functional, closed-class items).
A more articulate account of the presence of marked segments in functional
categories is provided by Willerman (1994), who compared phonological profiles
of pronouns in 32 typologically different languages. She found that segments that
are cross-linguistically marked, such as clicks, affricates, uvulars, ejectives and
consonants with secondary articulation occurred with less than predicted frequency
in the pronominal paradigms. At the same time, segments that are less marked
phonologically (bilabials, glottals, nasals and approximants) occurred with greater
than predicted frequency in pronouns. Working with an independently developed
scale of articulatory simplicity/complexity, Willerman found that the infrequently
occurring segments were those that are relatively more complex, and they were
present with relatively lower frequency in pronouns. Conversely, segments that are
overrepresented in pronominal paradigms are typically the phonologically
unmarked ones, at least from an articulatory standpoint.
Prosodic markedness has also been noted to correlate with membership in
open versus closed class categories. A statistical study conducted by Shi, Morgan
and Allopena (1998) on onset complexity shows that (less frequent) open-class
26
For the status of clicks as phonologically marked segments in relation to their articulatory
complexity, see Sagey (1986/1990).
67
words are more likely to have complex syllable onsets than (more frequent)
closed-class words.
Another area of morphology where we can see differences in phonological
markedness between categories that occur with different frequency is the root-affix
distinction.
4.2. Roots vs. affixes
The comparative phonological properties of the morphological domains ‘root’ and
‘affix’ have been extensively discussed in the literature in the last decade (Steriade
1993, McCarthy and Prince 1994, 1995, Selkirk 1995, Pulleyblank 1996, Benua
1997/2000, Beckman 1998/1999, Alderete 1999/2001, Bakovi ć 2000, Walker
2000ab, Urbanczyk 1996/2001, Ussishkin and Wedel 2002, Tessier 2004 and
many others).
The phonological reflex of the root-affix distinction has often been
considered to derive from the phonetic or psycholinguistic prominence of roots as
compared to affixes (see Beckman 1998/1999 and the references therein), which
confers roots special faithfulness properties as compared to affixes. In optimality-
theoretic terms, this property translates in the universally assumed fixed ranking
labeled the Root-Affix Faithfulness Metaconstraint (McCarthy and Prince 1995),
according to which faithfulness to root-sponsored phonological material outranks
faithfulness to phonological material in affixes.
Less attention has been paid to the specific issue of occurrence of marked/
unmarked phonological structure in roots versus affixes. However, a recent paper
68
by Ussishkin and Wedel (2002) lists a number of situations where affixes are
attested to host unmarked phonological material, while roots can contain both
marked and unmarked material.
In English, affix consonants are predominantly coronal, a relatively
common, unmarked place of articulation (the situation is largely similar in other
Indo-European languages). In Salish, glottalized consonants occur only in roots
and lexical suffixes, never in grammatical affixes. The relatively marked mid,
rounded vowels occur in Turkish only in roots, rarely in affixes. Discrepancies
between the distribution of vowels are also attested in Frisian and Dutch, where
affixes can contain only an unmarked subset of the vowel inventory (see also Dyck
1995 on asymmetries in vowel inventories occurring in stems versus affixes such
that affixes show smaller inventories). In prosody, roots are different from affixes
in Sanskrit, in that only the former allow for complex onsets
27
.
The asymmetric behavior of roots and affixes parallels that of lexical
(open-class) and functional (closed-class) items. From an ontological perspective,
this is not unexpected, since roots, which are more likely to contain marked
phonological structure, are open-class lexical elements, while affixes are closed-
class functional elements
28
. The frequency effects noted in the previous section for
open versus closed-class items are expected to hold for roots and affixes; the
former occur with less token frequency than the latter (see Segalowitz and Lane
27
For references, see Ussishkin and Wedel (2002) and the citations therein.
28
The generalization regarding the phonological markedness of roots and affixes can be extended
to reduplication structures. The reduplicant, a morphological formative with an affix-like,
functional status, is usually less marked than the base (a lexical element). The property is known as
the Emergence of the Unmarked (McCarthy and Prince 1994).
69
2000 and the references therein for frequency data). The picture is reminiscent of
‘marked in the less frequent’ effects.
Such an account has positive consequences for explaining certain
apparently unexpected reversals in the phonological properties of roots and affixes.
Hebrew (Ussishkin 2000, Ussishkin and Wedel 2002) represents a system where
affix faithfulness outranks all other instances of faithfulness, including root
faithfulness, which contradicts the prediction of the Root-Affix Faithfulness
Metaconstraint. In the templatic morphology of Hebrew, verbs are restricted to two
syllables and are formed through the concatenation of a bisyllabic base with a
bivocalic affix. The undominated bisyllabicity constraint on inflected forms can
only be satisfied by deleting material from the base:
(39) The verbal paradigm for gadal, ‘to grow’ (Ussishkin and Wedel 2002)
Base form +affix Derived form Gloss
gadal ‘he grew’
i e gidel ‘he raised’
u a gudal ‘he was raised’
hi i higdil ‘he enlarged’
hu a hugdal ‘he was enlarged’
As can be seen in (39), faithfulness to affix material outranks faithfulness
to root (base) material, thus contradicting the Root-Affix Faithfulness
70
Metaconstraint. Ussishkin and Wedel note that in Hebrew, a language with a five-
vowel inventory where verbal affixes consist of two vowels, these morphemes are
near neighbors of one another. Unlike in other languages, the high frequency of a
Hebrew verbal affix cannot compensate for low phonemic contrast, so affix
faithfulness ranking higher than root faithfulness is a mechanism by which contrast
between affixes is maintained. Ussishkin and Wedel suggest that the apparent
root/affix faithfulness reversal effect in Hebrew is functionally grounded in
frequency and neighborhood density for roots and affixes (a property that the
authors label ‘effective contrast’). The recourse to language use factors offers an
elegant, straightforward account for the reversal, in a manner akin to the solution
proposed by Tiersma (1982) for dealing with markedness reversals in
morphological linguistic typology (§1.2.3).
5. The functional grounding of Marked in the Marked effects
One of the central ideas advocated in this dissertation is that the connection
between grammatical markedness and phonological markedness (expressed by the
Marked in the Marked generalization) is functionally grounded.
A first step in this direction was taken in §1.2, where grammatical
markedness was shown to closely correlate with a usage factor such as frequency
of occurrence. In Chapter 3, where the optimality-theoretic framework assumed
for the analysis is introduced, we will see that many OT constraints can be shown
to have a functional grounding and we will introduce a licensing constraint
71
LICENSE(M,g). The licensor of marked phonological structure M in the marked
member g of grammatical category G is represented by the morpho-syntactic
features of g, which are marked by virtue of their low frequency of occurrence.
The picture sketched so far suggests that the MIM generalization is rooted
in language use. In this section I investigate in more depth the functional
underpinnings of MIM by looking at two conflicting forces that are at work in
language use and processing.
First, there are principles of economy that tend to keep linguistic
expression to a minimum (like the Principle of Least Effort formulated by Zipf
1949), whose effect becomes clear when we consider phenomena of reduction
affecting mainly high frequency items, as shown, among others, by Bybee 1994,
2001, Fidelholtz 1975, Hooper 1976, Ma ńczak 1980, Phillips 1980, Fenk-Oczlon
2001 etc.
Minimization of expression in speech production, a speaker-oriented
principle, is the second economy force at work. It is inherently in conflict with the
listener-oriented principle of sufficient contrast which demands that there be
enough expression to facilitate perception and decoding of information.
To see how these principles work, consider two simple examples from
diachrony that we owe to Haspelmath (2002). In Old High German, the Genitive
Plural marker was -ono, while in Modern German it is reduced to -en , as in
zungono - Zungen (‘tongues’ - tongue-genitive plural’). From the speaker’s point
of view, this sort of form reduction represents an instance of economy. On the
72
other hand, there are cases where the amount of structure increases in time. In Old
English, a noun like dohtor (‘daughter’) has null marking both in the Singular and
the Plural, whereas in Modern English the Plural is characterized by the presence
of a suffix (‘daughter-s’). The particular evolution in English illustrates a principle
of clarity in communication whereby comprehension of distinct meanings is aided
by formal differences that may run counter to economy.
With regard to economy in production (the speaker-oriented principle) I
discuss the advantages marked in the marked phenomena can have in language use
in §5.1. Such advantages are indirect, in that less marked phonological material in
more frequent forms favor effort minimization in production. In §5.2 I focus on
some positive consequences of MIM from a hearer-oriented perspective, and I
address the issues of perception, retrieval and language acquisition.
5.1 Production: MIM and form minimization
As Hawkins (1983, 1990, 1992ab, 2003, 2004) notes, grammatical markedness
hierarchies are in fact performance frequency rankings encoded in the grammar or
instances of ‘performance shaping grammars’. The ultimate cause of frequency
effects resides largely in pragmatic and/or cognitive and semantic factors that have
to do with the way language users perceive and express entities in the real world.
According to this assumption, groupings of two objects (Dual) can be less frequent
than groupings of more than two objects (Plural), and groupings in general involve
a higher level of abstractness that makes the Singular potentially more readily
73
available and necessary than the Plural, the Plural more available than the Dual
and so on. The empirical adequacy of this take on grammatical markedness is
supported by its ability to account for apparent markedness reversals, already
discussed in §1.2.3.
In phonology, a number of researchers have claimed that functional
grounding is internal to the grammar (Vennemann 1974, Hooper 1976, Stampe
1973, Donegan 1978, Donegan and Stampe 1979, Archangeli and Pulleyblank
1994 etc.)
29
. Moreover, the particular behavior of phonetically or
psycholinguistically prominent positions (Smith 2002/2005) or the mechanism of
inductive grounding (Hayes 1999) offer insights into the functional grounding of
phonological processes, although neither Smith nor Hayes makes explicit
assumptions as to grammars being directly determined by functional factors.
Given this picture, the next question to ask is, of course, how functional
factors correlate with formal complexity that can in turn translate into
phonological markedness. An indirect answer to this question is provided by the
Minimize Forms (MiF) principle proposed by Hawkins (2004):
(40) Minimize Forms (MiF)
The human processor prefers to minimize the formal complexity of each
linguistic form F (its phoneme, morpheme, word, or phrasal units) and the
number of forms with unique conventionalized property assignments,
thereby assigning more properties to fewer forms. These minimizations
29
It should be noted that not all researchers agree that the grammar is functionally grounded. See
Smith (2004a) for a review and references on functional grounding in phonology.
74
apply in proportion to the ease with which a given property P can be
assigned in processing to a given F. (Hawkins 2004:38)
In general, the MiF principle prefers structures with less material to those
with more. This is possible if structures with less material are more predictable
(and consequently, also more frequent in occurrence than structures with more
material), which constitutes the expression of economy in communication along
the lines of the Principle of Least Effort (Zipf 1949)
30
.
In syntax and morphology, the workings of MiF can be easily seen.
Consider, for illustration, grammatical roles and case marking. If the grammatical
role (subject, object etc.) of a certain NP can be reliably associated with its
syntactic position within the sentence, the grammar can dispense with the presence
of specific case markers. For example, in a language where there is a canonical
position for the subject, the Nominative case need not be overtly expressed, while
the object is usually case-marked
31
.
The explanatory power of MiF also manifests itself if we consider the
grammatical markedness – phonological markedness relation that this dissertation
investigates. In §2 we noted the tendency of grammatically marked forms to have
greater phonological size (in terms of segments, syllables etc.) than their unmarked
counterparts. Although this correlation is not without exceptions, it is
30
MiF is reminiscent in its effects of other principles of economy in production, like the Economy
Principle (Haiman 1983) or principles of pragmatic efficiency, like Grice’s (1975) second Quantity
Maxim or Levinson’s (2000) Minimization Principle.
31
See also Drellishak (2005) for a discussion of other syntactic phenomena that illustrate MiF, in
particular, coordination.
75
uncontroversial that less phonological bulk in the unmarked, frequent category
constitutes an advantage in production in terms of economy.
A similar advantage is noted in the cases of grammatical markedness –
phonological markedness correlations where the latter kind of markedness is not
simply a matter of size, but rather of phonological complexity (articulatory or
structural, as discussed in §3.1). Indeed, given the criteria we have adopted for
phonological markedness, marked phonological material is more complex
articulatorily and is more likely to involve the presence of more numerous and/or
complex articulatory gestures than unmarked material. It follows that
circumscribing the marked phonological material to the less frequent, more
marked categories, is bound to place less articulatory burden on the language user.
For example, restricting consonants with secondary articulation to the more
marked grammatical category
32
creates an advantage in production in the sense
that articulatorily complex structures are confined to a relatively smaller number of
forms, and the overall articulatory effort is kept to a minimum.
Note that the activity of MiF is in effect one of optimization of form and
properties that can be assigned to those forms. While forms with a high frequency
of use are likely to be characterized by minimal formal marking, less frequently
used forms are in a sense more conservative in that they overtly mark their
corresponding properties such as grammatical category (this idea is expressed in
Hawkins’s (2004) principle of Morphologization).
32
For an illustration of the phenomenon, see the analysis of Standard Romanian in Chapter 5.
76
The first to study the behavior of lexical competitors in relation to
frequency in production were Landauer and Streeter (1973). Since then, numerous
studies have been devoted to this issue.
With regard to the problem of errors in production, low frequency forms
have been shown to be generally more vulnerable to speech errors than high
frequency forms (Marquardt et al. 1979, Stemberger and MacWhinney 1986,
Vitevitch 1997); the fact that low frequency forms can host articulatorily difficult,
marked phonological material could make them even more prone to errors, which
seems to put such forms to a disadvantage in production
33
.
On the other hand, the question arises whether there is some other
processing advantage other than economy in production that may favor the
occurrence of marked phonological structure in marked, less frequent grammatical
categories that nevertheless express some relevant and necessary property P. This
question will be addressed in the following section.
5.2 Perception, retrieval and acquisition
If assigning phonological complexity to grammatical categories in relation to their
place on a grammatical markedness hierarchy has obvious advantages in
production, where effort is minimized on the speaker’s side, it is less clear what, if
any, the advantages of such behavior could be in perception and retrieval. On the
33
Of course, one may wonder why marked phonotactic structure does not then occur in more
frequently used forms, where errors are less likely to occur. The fact that we are not seeing such
‘transfers’ seems to indicate that the overall cost of such a hypothetical ‘transfer’ would be too high
on the speaker’s part.
77
contrary, it could be claimed that the unmarked category, with its relatively
unmarked phonological structure, should be easier to perceive and retrieve given
its high frequency of occurrence.
This is what psycholinguistic studies generally show (e.g. Gordon 1983,
Glanzer and Eisenreich, 1979). Work by Marslen-Wilson (1990) brings evidence
to bear on higher frequency words being generally faster and easier to access than
lower frequency words, even when they are balanced on other features, like
phonological size. For example, a frequent English word like ‘pen’ is accessed and
recognized faster than the less frequent word ‘pun’, the two lexical items having
the same segment count and similar phonological makeup. Another advantage of
high frequency of occurrence has been studied by Balota and Chumbley (1985),
who showed that the word frequency effect could be at least partially attributed to
articulatory processes. Such a view implies that articulatory programs for high-
frequency words may be compiled (and also executed) faster than those for low-
frequency words.
Nevertheless, high frequency of occurrence per se is not an inherent
advantage in processing. A number of studies have shown that the effect of
frequency on word intelligibility is mediated by the number of competitors for a
given word, and can be eliminated if the number of lexical neighbors is controlled
(Havens and Foote 1963, Pisoni et al. 1985, Luce 1986).
The question that is relevant for the phenomena approached in this
dissertation is, of course, whether Marked in the Marked effects in lower
78
frequency items present certain advantages in perception and retrieval. Without
offering a direct answer to this question, there are studies suggesting that such
advantages do exist.
In particular, Monaghan et al. (2005) have shown distributional
information to be more useful for categorizing higher frequency words, while
phonological cues provide more valid data for lower frequency words. Using
corpus analyses, they found that distributional information was a highly reliable
cue for high frequency words, but that reliability reduced for lower frequency
words. In addition, the reliability of phonological information was highest for the
low frequency words. In an artificial language experiment, Monaghan et al. (2005)
found that phonological information provided most assistance to categorizing
words that occurred with low frequency in the language.
The presence of marked phonological structure in the low frequency
category can in principle provide exactly the desirable phonological cues and thus
ease the process of decoding morphological forms. As a caveat, one should
distinguish between perceptual difficulty of individual sounds or phonological
structures and the perception of the output words in which they occur, although the
presence of rich cues in phonological constituents can aid the overall perception of
the word.
A second argument for a possible advantage of marked phonological
structure in perception comes from salience effects. Perceptual salience has been
long recognized to play an important role in shaping phonological inventories
79
(Liljencrants and Lindblom 1972, Ohala 1983, 1990, Lindblom 1986, Lindblom
and Maddieson 1988 etc.) and in phonological processes (Kohler 1990, 1991,
Lindblom 1990a). In particular, it has been noted that coronals and laryngeals are
less perceptually salient than labials and velars, which are also more marked (Jun
1995, 2004; Hamilton 1996, Hume et al. 1999). In the case of the coronal place of
articulation, the relative unmarkedness of coronals as compared to labials and
dorsals (testable by higher susceptibility to place assimilation, epenthesis,
occurrence in inventories) was shown to follow from poorer acoustic cues in coda
position (Byrd 1992). A similar argument can be made for vowel length. Long
vowels are more salient than short vowels, at least when used as a perceptual cue
for word-final stop voicing (Wang and Wu 2001). As Keren Rice (p.c.) points out,
acoustic cues correlate with confusability, in that the likelihood of mishearing a
labial consonant, for instance, is less than for an (unmarked) coronal one. Now if
the marked structure is associated with the marked, less frequent grammatical
category, whose overall salience is relatively low due to low frequency of
occurrence, this particular distribution can in principle have a beneficial effect for
the perception of the output inflected for the relevant morpho-syntactic category.
It should be noted, however, that the relation between frequency of
occurrence and perceptual salience is not yet fully understood. Although high
token frequency of grammatical categories is generally assumed to correlate with
higher perceptual salience, Kerswill and Williams (2002) report that some of the
less well represented forms used by adolescents in a dialect study project were
80
nevertheless salient for them without necessarily involving particular phonological
structure. Also, Hoffman (2004) maintains that low frequency complex
prepositions can be both cognitively salient and involved in language change, in
particular in processes of grammaticalization. This suggests that the impact of the
relative infrequency of syntactic forms on their salience and susceptibility to
language change requires further investigation.
As suggested by Todd Haskell (p.c.), another dimension of perception for
which frequency and phonological markedness effects can be relevant is
segmentation of the speech stream into words. Several researchers have looked at
the potential role of transitional probabilities in helping children segment the
speech stream into words (e.g. Harris 1955, Hayes and Clark 1970, Motley and
Baars 1975, Morton and Long 1976, Goodsitt et al. 1993, Saffran et al. 1996,
1997, Aslin et al. 1998 etc.).
In general, for any two phonemes A and B that occur consecutively in the
speech stream, transitional probability is the likelihood that, when having heard A,
the next phoneme will be B. The idea is that this probability will be higher within
words than between words. Naturally, this probability will also depend on the
frequency of occurrence of the B phoneme. All other things being equal, a B
phoneme of lower frequency will mean a lower transitional probability. If the B
phoneme (or, more generally, phonological structure B) is marked, it will most
likely have a lower frequency. So the occurrence of a marked phoneme could
serve as some sort of indicator for a good place to try to divide the speech stream
81
up into morphemes. In general, the intuitive idea is that the more a child hears
something and the more frequently a given phonological structure occurs in the
same place, the more likely the child will be to correctly segment the material and
subsequently produce it. High frequency forms with more entrenched structure do
therefore present a relative advantage over less frequent forms with more marked,
less predictable structure. On the other hand, due to the fact that most inflectional
processes are affixal in nature and affect word edges, transitional probability may
be beneficial in singling out low frequency inflected words belonging to marked
grammatical categories and thus compensate for their lower frequency of
occurrence.
Word frequency and age of acquisition effects in recognition and recall
have also been investigated. Using the so-called ‘remember-know’ procedure
developed by Gardiner (1988), Dewhurst et al. (1998) found that recognition
performance was higher for low-frequency words than for high-frequency words
and higher for late-acquired words than for early-acquired words in ‘remember’
responses. Advantages for both low and high frequency words were found when
the items were presented in mixed lists. The authors attribute the findings to the
more distinctive encoding of low-frequency and late-acquired words. One can
hypothesize that when marked phonological material is associated to low
82
frequency rather than high frequency words, the distinctiveness of low frequency
words is enhanced
34
.
To sum up, in §5 I examined possible mechanisms of functional grounding
for MIM effects. It appears that from the perspective of speech production
confining marked phonological structure to less frequent, grammatically marked
forms represents an advantage, since it leads to minimization of overall
articulatory effort on the speaker’s part. A connection was made with Hawkins’s
(2003, 2004) principle of form minimization (MiF), which opens the door to
considering MIM effects as language use effects encoded in the grammar.
If from the point of view of production there is an obvious advantage of
assigning less marked structure to more frequent categories, things are less clear if
we consider the other side of the coin, namely perception, and also aspects of
retrieval. The review of the psycholinguistic literature undertaken in this chapter
seems to suggest, nevertheless, that there may be advantages to having MIM
effects in natural languages. The same remark can be made to some extent with
respect to language acquisition, where the phonological cues provided by marked
structure have been shown to aid segmentation and increase distinguishability.
34
To complicate the matter even more, it should be mentioned that word frequency should be
understood in relation to phonological neighborhood effects. For example, Metsala (1997) found
that school-age children were better able to recognize low frequency words with large
neighborhoods than low frequency words with small neighborhoods in a gated recognition
task. See also Ussishkin and Wedel (2002), cited in §4.2, for an application of neighborhood
density as a functional factor in root-affix asymmetries.
83
5.3. The locus and emergence of MIM effects
If it is true that functional factors can shape grammars, there are two essential
issues to be addressed in relation to the way in which this influence is exerted.
First, there is the issue of the exact locus where functional forces operate. Second,
and equally important, is the issue of how patterns become grammaticalized, in
other words, with direct application to the effects discussed in this dissertation,
how MIM patterns emerge. In this section I approach the two issues mentioned
above.
With respect to the locus where functional factors (specifically, frequency
of occurrence of inflected forms) operate, there are, in principle, two possibilities.
Starting from the general assumption made in Optimality Theory that individual
grammars are particular rankings constructed from constraints in CON, one way in
which functional factors influence grammars is via the constraints as such; for
example, only those constraints which are functionally grounded are allowed to be
part of CON. In this dissertation I propose a class of formal licensing constraints
LICENSE(M,g) which license marked phonological structure M in outputs inflected
for a marked member g of grammatical category G (see Chapter 3 §4 for the
definition of the constraint). While I do not assume that all OT constraints are
functionally grounded, I claim that the licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g), which is
part of the MIM Schema, is subject to functional grounding
35
. This is seen clearly
35
For a general discussion of functional grounding of OT constraints, see Chapter 3 §1.1. For the
functional grounding of the licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g), see §4 of the same chapter. The
MIM Schema and its factorial typology are discussed in §5.
84
in the filtering mechanism which is assumed to allow only those licensing
constraints as part of CON for which, for a given marked phonological structure M,
g is a marked of grammatical category G. It is the same filtering mechanism
proposed by Smith (2002/2005) and discussed in Chapter 3 §4, but this time the
functional factor which is active in determining the range of possible constraints is
frequency of occurrence. Licensing constraints in which the value of the
grammatical category is an unmarked one are excluded from CON. As we shall see
in §5 of Chapter 3 and also from the illustrations in Chapter 5, the factorial
typology constructed on the basis of LICENSE(M,g) makes the right empirical
predictions. The essential prediction is that under general phonological similarity
of morphological marking the unmarked member g’ of G cannot license marked
phonological structure M which the marked member g does not. Had a licensing
constraint for an unmarked member g’ of G been allowed as part of CON, the
factorial typology would have predicted languages in which M occurs in g’, but
not in g. Such systems do not seem to exist, at least if we take into account the
similarity condition between g and g’ with respect to the way in which the two are
expressed phonologically.
A second conceivable possibility is that functional factors manifest
themselves by determining constraint rankings proper, for instance, as universally
fixed rankings between (some of) the constraints involved. The linguistic data
available for this thesis do not lend empirical support to such a mechanism. As
shown in Chapter 3 §5, the following patterns are predicted to exist: (a) Marked in
85
the Marked (M in g, but not in the unmarked category), (b) Full contrast (M both
inside and outside g) and (c) Lack of variation (M prohibited, irrespective of
grammatical category value). Given this diversity of linguistic patterns, among
which MIM is just one particular case, there is no evidence that points in the
direction of a universally fixed ranking driven by functional factors. In sum, I
claim that with respect to MIM effects grammars are ‘shaped’ by functional
factors in an indirect way, as a result of a substantive condition on CON, i.e. via the
inventory of constraints universally available, rather than via fixed rankings
between constraints.
Having addressed the issue of the locus of the activity of functional factors
which determine MIM phenomena, we can now turn our attention to the problem
of how such patterns become grammaticalized. There are two aspects to be taken
into consideration when examining the emergence of a grammatical pattern,
including MIM: language change and acquisition. The rest of this section is
devoted to some considerations on the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of
MIM patterns.
Within an optimality-theoretic approach to diachrony, it is commonly
assumed that language change involves constraint reranking (for work on language
change in Optimality Theory see, among others, Jacobs 1995, Bermúdez-Otero
1996, Cho 1998, Green 2001, Oh 2002). As for what constraints undergo
promotion or demotion in the reranking process, there is no agreement among
specialists. For example, while some researchers claim that language change
86
involves promotion of markedness constraints
36
and creates unmarked structure,
(Billerey 2000, Gess 2001, Green 2001, Kiparsky 2004 etc.), other researchers
highlight the role of markedness demotion in diachronic change, resulting in the
emergence of marked structure (Albright 2004, Deo and Sharma 2005, Morin
2005).
What is the contribution the study of MIM effects can make to the
understanding of the reranking processes in language change? In Chapter 5 we
shall see how Romanian, one of the case studies presented in this dissertation,
allows us to shed light on the relation between constraint reranking and the
diachronic emergence of MIM patterns, at least for the linguistic system in
question.
An interesting question surrounding the diachronic emergence of MIM
patterns is whether there are factors which can be said to favor this pattern of
linguistic change. While a definitive answer to this question cannot be provided on
the basis of the cases considered in this dissertation, one can entertain the
possibility that such favoring factors exist. For example, considerations of
economy in production favor the confinement of marked phonological structure to
output words inflected for a marked grammatical category, under general
phonological similarity, as we have already seen in §5.1. Another possible
favoring factor is represented by a general tendency in language change noted by
36
In this respect, language change would represent the opposite of language acquisition, a process
which has been claimed to involve demotion of markedness constraints (Tesar and Smolensky
1993, 1996, 1998, Gnanadesikan 1996, Hayes 2004 etc.)
87
Andersen (2001). Andersen formulates a principle (dubbed Markedness
Agreement) according to which as a change spreads and becomes generalized in a
language, “the innovated element is favored first of all in marked environments, if
the innovated element is marked, but in unmarked environments if it is unmarked”
(Andersen 2001:31). Although in its original statement Markedness Agreement
refers to the markedness of syntactic environments as favoring the marked item,
one can note the similarity with the Marked in the Marked generalization
discussed in this thesis. More precisely, both of them have the effect of
establishing a connection between two instances of markedness which converge in
an output which is the result of linguistic change. For the Markedness Agreement
principle, the two instances of markedness are represented by the marked structure
of the output and the marked character of the environment in which it occurs,
while in the case of MIM we are dealing with marked phonological structure in an
output inflected for a marked grammatical category.
The recurring question in this section has been what mechanism allows
patterns favored by language use to become grammaticalized. As shown by Kirby
(1994), two kinds of explanations can be given in principle for how language use
influences grammaticalization. The first type of explanation is essentially nativist:
it may be the case that the language faculty (Chomsky 1988), a property of the
human mind to acquire a language of a specific type, has properties that permit the
acquisition and grammaticalization of certain structures, possibly those structures
which are also favored by use.
88
The second type of explanation rests on the assumption that a language use
(performance) mechanism can account for the structure of the language it
processes. As Kirby points out, the nativist explanation has the drawback of being
unable to account for issues of distribution of patterns across languages and, as
argued by Hoekstra and Kooij (1988), is primarily devised to explain the ability of
the language learner to infer grammar starting from an abundance of unstructured
linguistic data (Plato’s Problem).
Returning to MIM effects, we are left with the hypothesis according to
which they arise from processing preferences that become grammaticalized rather
than being innate. Having already explored the emergence of MIM patterns in
diachrony, I will conclude this section with a few considerations on first language
acquisition. As we have seen in §5.2, there is evidence which can be used to
support the idea that the presence of marked phonological structure in outputs
inflected for marked grammatical categories may represent an advantage in
acquisition. Such arguments include ease of segmentation of the speech stream by
L1 learners and an enhanced distinctiveness of low frequency forms. It is for
future research to gather further evidence for potential advantages in the
acquisition of MIM patterns. From an optimality-theoretic perspective, first
language acquisition presupposes an initial state in which markedness dominates
faithfulness and it is through successive demotion of markedness constraints that
adult language is achieved (Tesar and Smolensky 1993, 1996, 1998, Gnanadesikan
1996, Hayes 2004 etc.)
89
MIM patterns pose an interesting problem to the markedness demotion
approach to acquisition. The MIM Schema involves LICENSE(M,g) as a top-ranked
markedness constraint. Two acquisition scenarios can be envisioned for such a
situation. First, it may be the case that the licensing constraint never gets demoted
in languages where MIM effects exist, to the effect that the occurrence of marked
phonological structure M outside marked category g is subject to the same
restrictions in the L1 learner and the adult. Second, it may be the case that the
licensing constraint is in fact promoted in acquisition. According to Fikkert and
Levelt (to appear), such a situation may require a refinement of the notion of
‘markedness constraint’ in the sense that two kinds of markedness constraints
should be distinguished, universal and emergent. Of these constraints, emergent
ones may get promoted in acquisition, and it may be the case that LICENSE(M,g) is
such a markedness constraint. An argument in favor of this behavior may provided
by the sensitivity of emergent constraints to frequency patterns, as shown by
Fikkert and Levelt, and we have already seen that licensing constraints of the type
described in this dissertation are grounded in frequency effects. This issue,
together with the acquisition side of MIM patterns in general, merits further
investigation.
The correlations made in this chapter do not constitute a full account of the
functional grounding of MIM phenomena. Nevertheless, their ultimate causes rest
in functional factors and the ability of language use to shape grammars.
90
6. Conclusion
In this chapter I introduced and reviewed the notions of grammatical (inflectional)
and phonological markedness. With respect to grammatical markedness, frequency
of usage was shown to constitute main criterion for this kind of markedness. The
frequentionist approach to grammatical markedness allows for a successful
account of so-called markedness reversal phenomena and, as I claim in this
dissertation, for the correlation between grammatical and phonological markedness
that I label Marked in the Marked effects.
In phonology, a review of properties associated with markedness shows
that its most reliable correlates are complexity (structural and articulatory, and its
correlate, perceptual difficulty) and occurrence in phonological inventories. Such
criteria form the basis for optimality-theoretic markedness constraints *M that
militate against marked phonological structures M.
With respect to the connection between the two kinds of markedness, the
Marked in the Marked (MIM) hypothesis was introduced, according to which
under similar inflectional coding, marked grammatical categories are more (or
equally) prone to sponsor marked phonological structure than unmarked
categories. Since grammatical markedness is largely equated with token frequency
of outputs, the hypothesis was successfully tested on linguistic objects known for
their asymmetric usage frequencies, such as open versus closed class items and
roots versus affixes, respectively.
91
Finally, I discussed the issue of functional grounding of MIM phenomena.
As regards the side of language production, MIM effects represent an advantage in
minimizing the speaker’s articulatory effort while assuring the distinctiveness of
linguistic forms. From the point of view of speech perception, retrieval and
acquisition, the picture is less clear, but there is indication that at least in some
respects MIM phenomena can have a beneficial effect in facilitating word
recognition and aiding speech stream segmentation.
In the following chapter I will discuss how the hypothesized correlation
instantiated by MIM is implemented in Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky
1993/2004), which is the theoretical framework assumed for the present
dissertation.
92
CHAPTER 3
MODELING MARKEDNESS IN OPTIMALITY THEORY
0. Introduction
In the preceding chapter we discussed the content and manifestations of
grammatical and phonological markedness and we advanced the claim that there is
a correlation between the two, instantiated by the Marked in the Marked (MIM)
generalization. In accordance with MIM, as we have seen, inflectional or
grammatical markedness corresponds to a higher or equal degree of phonological
markedness.
As inflectional markedness is shaped by usage such as economy and
frequency, MIM is per se a statement of the connection between language use
(performance) and (phonological) grammars. The correlation is ultimately a matter
of optimization in that actual linguistic systems tend to maximize economy in
communication by allowing, other things equal, marked phonological structure in
forms that are relatively infrequent (i.e. grammatically marked).
Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), where
grammars emerge as a consequence of rankable, violable constraints, is superior to
rule-based models in the analysis of MIM effects. It is the factorial typology
orientation of the OT approach and the ‘homogeneity of target/heterogeneity of
process’ (McCarthy 2002) feature that confer the superiority of OT to rule-based
approaches to MIM (see §5.2 for a discussion of the factorial typology). This
93
second chapter of the dissertation is devoted to the optimality-theoretic modeling
of MIM phenomena.
§1 discusses the content of the notion ‘markedness’ in OT and addresses
the concept of functional grounding of constraints. §2 reviews licensing
mechanisms represented by Positional Faithfulness and Positional Markedness. In
§3 I discuss positive licensing in privileged positions and in §4 I propose a family
of constraints that license marked phonological structure in outputs inflected for
marked grammatical categories. §5 introduces the Marked in the Marked schema
and the associated factorial typology. §6 is intended as a brief summary of the
chapter.
1. Grammatical markedness and Optimality Theory
OT (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004) distinguishes two types of constraints,
dubbed faithfulness and markedness. Faithfulness constraints militate for the
preservation and identity of input structures and relations in outputs and penalize
input-output discrepancies. In contrast, markedness constraints are blind to input
structure and “assign violation-marks to a candidate based solely on its output
structure, without regard to its similarity to the input” (McCarthy 2002:14)
37
.
As already hinted in Chapter 2 (§3.2), in OT the only way to show that a
structure is marked is to show that there exists a markedness constraint against that
structure. In addition to that, the markedness constraint should lead to the right
37
See also Moreton’s (2004) formal definition of markedness constraints, where the same idea is
emphasized, that markedness constraints look only at the output and ignore the input.
94
typological predictions. Although not decisive, functional considerations may help
explain why Universal Grammar has a certain markedness constraint and, say, not
its opposite. It is at this point that functional grounding assumes a role in the
formulation of OT constraints. Although, as Hayes (1999) notes, the fact that an
OT constraint is based on a functional principle does not make the constraint
inviolable, the functional grounding of (certain) constraints increases the
explanatory power of the theory. As the licensing constraint I propose in this thesis
is grounded in functional factors such as frequency of occurrence of inflected
forms, I will start with a discussion of the functional grounding of OT constraints.
1.1 Functional grounding of OT constraints
Due to the way it is defined, the notion of ‘markedness’ is used in a technical sense
in OT. The legitimate question arises as to the extent to which there is a
connection between OT markedness constraints in phonology and other types of
markedness that exist outside of phonology, in syntax or morphology. As
Haspelmath (2003) puts it, cross-linguistic processes stem from processing
preferences (minimization of the coding/uncoding effort) and conceptual-
pragmatic preferences like predictability or familiarity in use. In short, there is at
least a tendency, if not a universal property, of OT constraints to be functionally
grounded, and the connection between OT markedness constraints and other kinds
of markedness can be expressed in functional terms. As we are going to see, this
95
applies not only to phonological OT, but also to constraints in optimality-theoretic
morpho-syntax.
In its early statements, phonological OT does not make explicit
assumptions as to the functional grounding of constraints. Expressed as
phonological generalizations, constraints are assumed to be universal and
languages differ with respect to the rankings of constraints. In short, a constraint is
considered to be adequate to the extent to which its action is attested by cross-
linguistic evidence
38
.
Subsequent research has shown that many OT constraints are functionally
grounded or rooted in the articulatory and perceptual systems (the idea is explicitly
stated by Kager 1999). This is the position advocated, among others, by Flemming
(1995), Steriade (1997, 2001), Beckman (1998/1999), Boersma (1998), Kirchner
(1998), Haspelmath (1999), Hayes (1999), Côté (2000), Pierrehumbert (2000),
Bye (2001)
39
, Smith (2002/2005), Curtin (2002), Padgett (2003ab) and Walker
(2005) or by the contributions in Hayes, Kirchner and Steriade (2004). For an
important pre-OT contribution to the issue of functional grounding of phonological
constraints, see Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994) and the references therein.
To see how functional grounding works, consider, by way of example, a
constraint like NOCODA (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), which enforces a ban
on closed syllables:
38
Apart from this kind of descriptive adequacy, constraints were also thought to be to a large extent
characterized by innateness (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004, Tesar and Smolensky 1993, 1996).
39
Bye (2001) calls the position according to which all OT constraints are functionally grounded
‘the strong enactionist hypothesis’.
96
(41) NOCODA (or *C]
σ
) ‘Syllables are open.’
The constraint in (41) can be said to be functionally grounded in the
perceptual system, as coda consonants, which are unreleased, tend to lack the
perceptual cues present in onset consonants (Ohala 1990, Steriade 1995c).
NOCODA contributes to the understanding of an important typological universal on
syllable inventories, namely the fact that open (CV) syllables are allowed in all
languages, whereas closed (CVC) syllables are allowed only in a subset of the
languages of the world. Moreover, assuming a constraint like NOCODA contributes
to the understanding of processes of syllabification that disfavor closed syllables,
even in languages with syllable codas.
In contrast, positing a constraint with a complementary activity (CODA),
which requires syllables to be closed, would not only lack empirical adequacy
(there are no languages where codas are required in all syllables), but would also
fail to meet the grounding conditions of NOCODA. A similar argument can be
made for other prosodic markedness constraints like ONSET (Itô 1989, Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004), which requires the presence of syllable onsets.
Functional grounding of markedness constraints in phonology is advocated
by Smith’s (2002/2005) theory of augmentation in prominent positions. Smith
notes that a number of phonological properties (like resistance to neutralization or
prominence enhancement) can be accounted for if we consider markedness
constraints that hold for prominent positions (M/str, labeled ‘augmentation
97
constraints’) rather than faithfulness to weak positions (F/wk). One of the key
insights in Smith’s proposal is that not every logically possible M/str constraint
can be assumed to be part of the constraint repository CON. Building on earlier
work by Hayes (1999), she proposes a model of CON in which only a subset of
imaginable M/str constraints are part of CON, namely those that are functionally
(phonetically or psycholinguistically) grounded. This is achieved by imposing
constraint filters, an issue which will be addressed in more detail in §4.
In general, many of the individual constraints or constraint families that
have been acknowledged in phonological Optimality Theory are functionally
grounded. For example, considerations of economy in output expression form the
underpinnings of constraints of the *STRUC family (Prince and Smolensky
1993/2004, Zoll 1993, 1996), according to which various (and qualitatively
different) amounts of phonological structure (features, segments, syllables etc.) are
not allowed in outputs. Economy considerations underlie other markedness
constraints as well. Another example in point is provided by LAZY (Kirchner 1997,
1998), which militates for minimization of articulatory effort. Faithfulness
constraints associated with phonetically or psycholinguistically privileged
positions as instances of functionally grounded constraints are discussed in more
detail in §2.1.
In OT syntax, economy is enforced by STAY (Grimshaw 1993, 1997), a
constraint that prohibits movement operations. Also, conceptual-pragmatic
processing preferences have been claimed to find an expression in negative
98
markedness constraints of the *STRUC family in syntax, such as *DATIVE,
*ACCUSATIVE, *NOMINATIVE or *OBJECT (Aissen 1999/2001, 2003; Woolford
2001).
In this dissertation I propose that the inventory of grounded constraints be
enriched by a class of licensing constraints for which the licensors are the morpho-
syntactic features of marked members of grammatical categories (defined as in
Chapter 2). This brings further evidence to bear on the functional grounding of OT
constraints and contributes to accounting for phonological asymmetries between
categories on a grammatical markedness hierarchy. I claim that low(er) frequency
of morpho-syntactic features correlates with a higher capacity of outputs inflected
for those features to license marked phonological structure. This issue is discussed
in detail in the following section, where the respective type of licensing constraint
is introduced as part of the universal constraint repository CON (Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004) and arguments are put forth for the necessity of
considering licensing constraints functionally grounded in usage frequency.
2. Licensing
In Chapter 2 I introduced the notion of grammatical and phonological markedness.
I subscribed to the idea that frequency is the most reliable criterion for
grammatical markedness
40
, while phonological markedness is best described as
40
The frequency of occurrence of forms reflects pragmatic, conceptual and cognitive preferences
encoded in language use.
99
articulatory and structural complexity and capacity to occur in phonological
inventories.
Asymmetries between the general behavior of phonological material and
the particular behavior of the same in particular contexts describable in terms of
language use or performance
41
have been long documented. In particular, it has
been shown that positions that are perceptually salient (like word-initial position,
released consonants, root-initial syllables, onsets or stressed vowels) are privileged
in that they play an important role in terms of psycholinguistic processes
(perception, access, retrieval, storage) and resist neutralization to a larger extent
than their unprivileged counterparts. For earlier work on the ability of privileged
positions to preserve contrasts see Nooteboom (1981), Hawkins and Cutler (1988),
Ohala (1990), Ohala and Kawasaki (1984) etc.
Manifestations of the asymmetry between privileged and non-privileged
positions have been shown to be pervasive in the phonology of individual
languages (see Beckman 1997, 1998/1999 for a variety of examples). For instance,
in Shona (Beckman 1997, 1998/1999) vowel height is fully contrastive in root-
initial syllables, but subject to restrictions in non-initial syllables. Similarly, in a
large number of languages, vowel reduction, a process that potentially leads to
contrast minimization, does not affect vowels in stressed syllables (Crosswhite
2001). With respect to onsets, Lombardi (1999) argues for faithfulness constraints
relativized to those positions in the distribution of laryngeal features across
41
See Chapter 2 §1.2.2 for a discussion of the concept of performance.
100
languages. Privileged positions have been also shown to act as triggers of
phonological processes such as vowel harmony, place assimilation, laryngeal
feature assimilation, and dissimilation (Majors 1998, Beckman 1998/1999 and the
references therein, Walker 2001a).
With the advent of Optimality Theory, the asymmetry between privileged
and non-privileged positions as a function of their phonetic underpinnings was
recognized as a factor encoded in phonological grammars (Steriade 1995c,
Flemming 1995, Jun 1995, Kirchner 1996, 1997, Zoll 1996, Beckman 1997,
1998/1999, Lombardi 2001 and many others).
The particular behavior of privileged positions has been implemented as
licensing. The concept of licensing in phonology predates Optimality Theory (see,
for instance, Itô 1986/1988). Building on the notion of prosodic licensing that
requires all segments to be members of higher level prosodic units (syllable
constituents, syllables, feet), Goldsmith (1990) defines autosegmental licensing as
a property of certain units of description (syllables, codas, word-final morphemes)
to license certain autosegmental features.
Within the optimality-theoretic framework, two approaches to licensing
have emerged, positional faithfulness and positional markedness. These
approaches will be discussed in the following sections.
101
2.1 Positional faithfulness
Licensing of phonological structure in privileged positions (α) has been claimed to
assume the form of specific positional faithfulness by a number of researchers
(Alderete 1995/2001, Steriade 1995b, Beckman 1997, 1998/1999, Casali 1997,
Lombardi 1999, Walker 2001a etc.). While the specific privileged position α for
which positional faithfulness is implemented may differ, advocates of positional
faithfulness propose that faithfulness constraints be relativized to privileged
positions α, assuming the general form FAITH
α
. Positional faithfulness constraints
participate in schemas like the one in (42) below:
(42) Positional Faithfulness schema
FAITH
α
» M » FAITH
What the Positional Faithfulness schema (42) shows is that faithfulness to
input specifications can be over-ridden in the general case by well-formedness
requirements enforced by the markedness constraint M, except in the privileged
position α. A simple example is due to Zoll (1998), who considers the hypothetical
case of a language where identity to a labial place of assimilation is observed only
in (privileged) onset position. In (43) the Positional Faithfulness schema is
instantiated for α = onset:
102
(43) Table 10 IDENT[onset seg] » *LABIAL » IDENT[seg]
/pumsa/ IDENT[onset seg] *LABIAL IDENT[seg]
a. pum.sa **! (p,m)
b. " pun.sa *(p) *(n)
c. tun.sa *!(t) **(t,n)
When enforced, the Positional Faithfulness schema for the privileged
position ‘onset’ predicts that preservation of input specifications for syllable onsets
is more imperative than satisfaction of well-formedness conditions and
preservation of input specifications for segments in general. The schema in (42)
successfully accounts for the faithful parse of the labial onset of the winner (43b.),
although in coda position the place specification for an underlying labial can
change, as in (43b.) and (43c.).
Although positional faithfulness has been used successfully in accounting
for an important number of language facts, its adequacy and applicability have not
remained unquestioned (see, for example, Zoll 1998). As an alternative, positional
markedness has emerged as a second approach to licensing in privileged
positions
42
.
2.2 Positional markedness
The second approach to licensing in prominent positions is represented by
Positional Markedness (Itô and Mester 1996, Majors 1998, Zoll 1996, 1998,
42
It should be noted, however, that the two kinds of licensing, positional faithfulness and positional
markedness, do not necessarily stand in conflict and may be both needed (Walker 2001ab).
103
Steriade 1997, Ringen and Vago 1998, Crosswhite 2001, de Lacy 2001, 2002,
Lombardi 2001, Walker 2001b, 2005, Smith 2002/2005 etc.).
There are three kinds of positional markedness constraints that have been
proposed in the literature: (a) constraints that prohibit a certain phonological
structure (M) in non-privileged positions (*M/non-privileged, as in Crosswhite
2001), (b) constraints that imply the overlapping or containment of M within
privileged position X (Zoll 1998, Walker 2005) and (c) constraints where a
privileged position X implies the presence of M in that position (the ‘augmentation
constraints’ of Smith 2002/2005).
Assuming a hypothetical privileged position α, positional markedness can
be implemented as a markedness constraints relativized to α (M
α
). By analogy to
Positional Faithfulness, we can define Positional Markedness schemas, shown in a
general form in (44):
(44) Positional Markedness Schema
M
α
» FAITH » M
To understand how Positional Markedness works, consider again the
hypothetical example discussed in (43). The privileged position is ‘onset’, and the
structure against which markedness militates is the labial place of articulation. The
category-neutral markedness constraint is *LABIAL and the positional markedness
constraint (M
α
) is *LABIAL(CODA), violated in outputs that have segments with a
104
labial place of articulation and in a coda
43
. Note that *LABIAL(CODA) has the effect
of prohibiting labial segments from occurring in the non-privileged position
‘coda’. An analysis along these lines works well for the hypothetical case (43).
This is shown in (45):
(45) Table 11 *LABIAL(CODA) » IDENT[seg] » *LABIAL
/pumsa/ *LABIAL(CODA) IDENT[seg] *LABIAL
a. pum.sa *!(m) **(m, p)
b. " pun.sa *(n) *(p)
c. tun.sa **!(t, n)
As (45) shows, candidate (45a.) incurs a fatal violation of *LABIAL(CODA),
because it has a coda with a labial place of articulation, and loses early in the
game. Candidate (45c.) loses due to excessive violations of IDENT[seg]. This
allows candidate (45b.), in which the only violation of faithfulness is incurred by
the coda of the first syllable, to emerge as the actual output.
It looks like both Positional Faithfulness and Positional Markedness can be
used to achieve the same result. Nevertheless, as Zoll (1998) points out, not all
instances of phonological asymmetries associated with privileged positions can
receive a satisfactory account within a theory that relies on Positional Faithfulness.
She shows that Positional Faithfulness is too limited in its scope and is primarily
devised to deal with instances of reduction of (underlying) marked structure.
43
As Zoll (1998) points out, this version of Positional Markedness constraint involves constraint
conjunction. *LABIAL(CODA) is violated in outputs that simultaneously violate *LABIAL and
NOCODA.
105
Situations in which marked structure arises via addition of phonological material
are not predicted by the theory. Positional Faithfulness can also make erroneous
predictions, such as the one according to which marked structure resulting from
augmentation would be necessarily attracted to non-privileged (or weak) positions
(see the arguments in Zoll 1998 as well as the analysis she proposes for Guugu
Yimidhirr). A similar position is expressed by Jun (2001), who states the
advantages a Positional Markedness analysis has over a Positional Faithfulness
one in rounding phenomena in some Altaic languages. The necessity for Positional
Markedness is also discussed in Walker (2001b, 2005).
The situation illustrated in (45) above represents an instance of Positional
Markedness where a well-formedness condition is imposed on a non-privileged
position. It should be noted that there are other formulations of Positional
Markedness in which marked phonological structure M is required in a privileged
position (α). This is the case of the ‘positive’ Positional Markedness constraints
like COINCIDE(x,y) introduced by Zoll (1996, 1998) or positional augmentation
constraints (Smith 2002/2005).
Returning to the MIM effects investigated in this dissertation, they
represent instances of phonological asymmetry which manifest themselves
between outputs inflected for marked versus unmarked grammatical categories. I
claim that a word carrying the morpho-syntactic features of the marked
grammatical category in its Morphological Structure represents a kind of
‘privileged position’ akin to the privileged positions described in phonology. To
106
account for the fact that marked phonological material (M) can occur in those
positions I propose a class of positive Positional Markedness constraints
LICENSE(M,g) that license M in the relevant outputs, inflected for the marked
member g of grammatical category G.
In the literature, positive licensing as a context-specific markedness
constraint has been proposed for capturing situations where features or
phonological material are affiliated to strong or privileged positions (Zoll 1998,
Crosswhite 2000, 2001, Walker 2001b, 2004, 2005). Before I lay out the specifics
of my proposal, I discuss the issue of positive licensing in privileged positions in
the following section.
3. Positive licensing in privileged positions
If positional faithfulness and markedness are both largely speaking licensing
constraints in the respective positions, licensing constraints proper are positional
markedness constraints that express positive well-formedness conditions to the
effect that marked phonological structures are licit in licensed positions (and/or
disallowed in the complementary set of positions). Zoll (1996, 1998) posits a
family of positive licensing constraints that she labels COINCIDE(x,y), defined in
(46)
44
:
44
Without developing a theory of positive licensing, Crosswhite (2001) implements a family of
LIC-Q/β constraints that achieve the realization of the pertinent phonological property Q in the
context β.
107
(46) COINCIDE (x,y)
(i) ∀x (x = marked structure) →∃y (y=strong constituent ∧ Coincide (x,y))
(ii) Assess one mark for each value of x for which (i) is false.
For example, if x is a mid vowel (a marked phonological structure) and y, a
stressed syllable (a ‘strong’ or privileged position), the constraint COINCIDE(MidV,
σ ) is violated whenever mid vowels are not in stressed syllables, and satisfied in
all situations in which mid vowels appear in stressed syllables. The interest of
COINCIDE constraints for a theory of the relation between grammatical and
phonological markedness lies in the fact that, apart from expressing licensing
conditions, the constraints encapsulate a domain membership, rather than an
identity relation (x is contained in the domain defined by y). Finally, it should be
noted (following Zoll 1998) that the licensing constraints typified in (46) involve
constraint conjunction (Smolensky 1995).
A development of Zoll’s positive licensing mechanism is provided by
Walker (2001b, 2004, 2005). In her formulation of licensing, Walker proposes a
family of LIC(F, S-Pos) constraints that demand the association of particular
feature specifications (F) with perceptually strong positions (S-Pos). The formal
definition of LIC(F, S-Pos) is given below:
108
(47) LIC(F, S-Pos)
Let i. f be an occurrence of feature specification [F] in an output O
ii. s be an occurrence of strong position S in O
iii. and sδf mean that s dominates f
Then (∀f)(∃s)[sδf]
In (47iii.), the domination relation δ between s and f need not be
immediate. For example, a phonological feature like [high] can be licensed by a
stressed syllable, although in a prosodic hierarchical representation [high] is not
directly dominated by the syllable.
Building on the above work on positive licensing by Zoll (1996, 1997,
1998) and Walker (2001b, 2004, 2005), I propose a family of constraints that
license marked phonological structure M in the marked grammatical category g
(LICENSE(M,g)
45
. The proposal is presented in §4.
45
The licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g) could be formulated as follows, by analogy with the
work of Walker (2001b, 2004, 2005):
Let
i. m be an occurrence of phonological structure M in an output O
ii. γ be an occurrence of the morpho-syntactic feature(s) for a value g of a grammatical
category G
iii. and mℜγ mean that m is associated with γ
Then (∀m)(∃γ)[mℜγ]
Conditions on M and g as well as the precise nature of the ‘association’ relation (ℜ) holding
between m and γ are discussed in §4.
109
4. Licensing of marked phonological structure in marked categories
The Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization introduced in Chapter 2
associates marked phonological material (M) with a marked member (g) of an
inflectional category (G). In licensing terms, this is tantamount to saying that M in
Phonological Structure is licensed by the presence of the morpho-syntactic
features of g in the Morphological Structure of outputs. The consequence of such a
move is the fact that the universal constraint set CON contains licensing constraints
LICENSE(M,g). Given the way positive licensing is conceived of in the literature
(§3 above), the pertinent question at this point is to what extent such a move is
theoretically justified.
The issue that needs to be addressed is that not any constituent or category
can act as a licensor. Specifically, we have seen that licensors of marked
phonological structure M should qualify as privileged positions, which are
phonetically or psycholinguistically strong (or prominent). The properties of such
positions are grounded in language use. Such factors have to do with production,
perception, retrieval etc. and help to determine which structures serve as licensors
of phonological structure.
I propose that the array of factors capable of determining the licensors of
phonological structure be enriched so as to include frequency of occurrence of
linguistic expressions. As shown in Chapter 2, if g
1
and g
2
are members of the
grammatical category G such that g
2
> g
1
on the grammatical markedness
hierarchy (g
2
is grammatically more marked than g
1
), the relation between their
110
frequency of occurrence (ϕ) is ϕ(g
1
) > ϕ(g
2
). The lower frequency ϕ(g
2
) pinpoints
member g
2
of grammatical category G as a potential licensor of marked
phonological structure M. The marked phonological structure (M) is therefore
licensed in output forms that carry the morpho-syntactic specifications for g
2
. It
should be emphasized that not any category g
2
licenses every marked M, rather a
constraint particular or language particular pairing occurs.
A terminological clarification is in place at this point. The fact that
inflected outputs ‘carry’ or ‘are associated with’ the morpho-syntactic
specification for a grammatical category G should be understood as the presence
of the functional node (and syntactic projection) for that category in the
Morphological Structure of that output (see Chapter 5 §1.2.2 for more on the
notion ‘Morphological Structure’). For example, if an output O carries the
morpho-syntactic specification ‘Plural’, there is a Number projection in the
Morphological Structure of that output and the head of that projection has the
‘plural’ syntactic feature. The syntactic feature percolates and lends the whole
output the plurality property from a morpho-syntactic and semantic perspective
46
.
This gives us an answer to the question ‘what counts as a grammatical category?’
A grammatical category represents a set of syntactic features that express
meanings from the same conceptual domain (Bybee 1985, Crystal 1985, Hopper
1992). The fact that an output word is inflected for a particular category is
represented by the presence of the morpho-syntactic features on the head of the
46
See Chapter 5 §1.2.2 for more details and an illustration of Phonological Structure (PS),
Morphological Structure (MS) and phonological exponence.
111
relevant syntactic projection in the Morphological Structure of the output. The
working definition for ‘grammatical category’ can be easily applied for categories
which have a precise semantic content, like Number, Gender, Tense etc.
In other situations, as for instance the category of Case, the definition of
grammatical categories has to take into account more abstract conceptual and
formal relations. According to Blake (2001), Case is a category which marks
dependent nominals in relation to their heads (verbs, adjectives, prepositions).
Once the category defined in this relational fashion, its individual members
(Nominative, Accusative, Genitive etc.) can have more or less unitary semantic
properties.
Determining the exact inventory of categories and syntactic projections is
sometimes an empirical matter and it can sometimes be the case that syncretism
phenomena exist. In Old Saxon
47
, for instance, the Nominative and Accusative on
the one hand and the Dative and the Instrumental on the other hand pattern
together to a large extent with respect to their morpho-syntactic behavior. The
Nominative and Accusative are both ‘structural cases’, generally not associated
with particular thematic roles in their semantic behavior. Syntactically, they meet
similar requirements for case assignment on inflected nominals. Similarly, the
Dative and Instrumental pattern together – they are ‘lexical cases’ associated with
specific thematic roles and are require similar case assignment configurations. This
parallel behavior underlies the traditional grouping into two case forms, ‘Direct’
47
The Old Saxon data are discussed in Chapter 4, where inflectional paradigms are presented.
112
(Nominative-Accusative) and ‘Oblique’ (Dative-Instrumental). Without going into
details of case assignment mechanisms, the similar behavior of the Nominative
and Accusative allows us to assume the presence of a unified morpho-syntactic
feature ‘direct’ in the Morphological Structure of words inflected for these two
cases, and, by analogy, of a morpho-syntactic feature ‘oblique’ for the Dative and
Instrumental. In conclusion, lumping together the Nominative and Accusative and
the Dative and Instrumental, respectively, is not simply an assumption made
purely for expository convenience, but a consequence of the properties of these
cases
48
.
Also, it is often the case that an output is inflected for two or several
morpho-syntactic categories at the same time. The fact that in Morphological
Structure morpho-syntactic categories have separate projections (and heads)
allows for their individual treatment. For instance, one can compare nominal
outputs simultaneously inflected for Case and Number by keeping one dimension
constant and looking into the other dimension of morphological variation.
To return to the issue of licensing, for a member g of a given grammatical
category G that occurs with frequency ϕ, the licensing constraint for a given
marked structure M is LICENSE(M,g), defined informally in (48):
48
As we shall see (Chapter 4 §4.2.1), the grouping of cases in Old Saxon on the basis of the criteria
shown here is not only possible and motivated, but also necessary in order to make the licensing
analysis work.
113
(48) LICENSE(M,g) ‘The phonological structure M is licensed in the
grammatical category g.’
The licensing constraint (48) is subject to the condition that g is the
(relatively) grammatically marked member of grammatical category G. To
illustrate the proposal on a simple case, if category G is ‘number’ and its members
(g
i
), Singular and Plural, LICENSE(M,g) assumes the form LICENSE(M, PLURAL), as
the Plural is more marked grammatically (and less frequent) than the Singular.
Let us turn to the formal statement of the licensing constraint (48). This
definition is given along the lines of Walker (2001b, 2004, 2005) and has already
been previewed in its essential lines in footnote 45 above. Recall that in that
definition there was an ‘association’ relation (ℜ) holding between an occurrence
(m) of a phonological structure (M) and an occurrence (γ) of the morpho-syntactic
features of a member (g) of a grammatical category (G). The definition in footnote
45 left the association relation unexplained. Also, we still have to clarify the status
of M and g. All these issues are discussed in the remainder of this section, in
relation with the formal definition proposed for LICENSE(M,g) in (49):
114
(49) LICENSE(M,g)
Let
i. m be an occurrence of phonological structure M in an output O
ii. γ be an occurrence of the morpho-syntactic feature(s) for a value g of a
grammatical category G
Then m in the Phonological Structure (PS) of an output O implies γ in the
Morphological Structure (MS) of same output O.
The licensing constraint in (49) is subject to filter conditions such that M is
a marked phonological structure and g a marked member of a grammatical
category G (for example, in a two-way Singular-Plural Number system, g is
Plural). As regards the relation between m and γ (so far vaguely referred to as
‘association’ (ℜ) in footnote 45), it is one of material implication. This can be seen
from the evaluation of the licensing constraint, which is violated only for instances
(m) of the marked phonological material M in the Phonological Structure of an
outputs (O) which are not inflected for the marked grammatical member g of G in
their Morphological Structure. The filter conditions and the implication are
discussed later in this chapter.
To sum up the discussion so far, consider the schematic illustration in (50)
below, repeated from Chapter 1:
115
Output inflected for g
2
(50) Figure 4 Licensing of marked phonological material in the marked category
Language use factors (‘performance’) ... ϕ
2
< ϕ
1
...
Grammatical markedness hierarchy ... g
2
> g
1
...
Morphological Structure (MS) MS(g
2
)
Phonological Structure (PS) [... M ...]
The top tier of schema (50) relates a factor of language use (frequency of
occurrence (ϕ)) and the grammatical markedness hierarchy. For a given
grammatical category G, the frequency of occurrence of inflected outputs
determines the place of the members (g
1
and g
2
) of a morpho-syntactic category G
on the grammatical markedness hierarchy. The bottom part of the schema
represents the licensing of marked phonological structure (M) in output words that
are inflected for the marked grammatical category (g
2
). The Morphological
Structure (MS(g
2
)) of those words contains the morpho-syntactic node that carries
the specifications for g
2
. If we consider the Phonological Structure (PS) of an
output inflected for G, a marked phonological structure within PS is said to be
licensed by the marked member g
2
of G if the Morphological Structure (MS) of
that word has the morpho-syntactic specifications for g
2
(MS(g
2
))
49
. As already
mentioned, the formal licensing relation that exists between the occurrence m of
49
MS(g
2
) is a shorthand notation for the presence of a syntactic node carrying the features of g
2
(the marked category) in the Morphological Structure of the output.
116
the marked phonological structure M in an output and the occurrence (γ) of the
features of the marked grammatical category is one of material implication in the
sense that ‘m implies γ’
50
. In other words, the presence of an instance m of marked
phonological structure M in Phonological Structure implies the presence of the
morpho-syntactic features for the marked grammatical category g in
Morphological Structure, a relation symbolized as ‘M ⊃ g’.
Let us return to the issue of filters on possible licensing constraints. As
shown in (50), a functional factor (frequency of use) determines the grammatical
category whose morpho-syntactic features can license the presence of marked
phonological structure in inflected outputs. The essential remark here is that not
any member of a given grammatical category (G) can, via its morpho-syntactic
features, license marked phonological material (M) in outputs inflected for that
category. In fact, the constraint LICENSE(M,g) is defined only if M is a kind of
marked phonological structure and g, a marked member of G (for simplicity, if g
1
and g
2
are members of G such that g
2
is more marked than g
1
, the licensing
constraint is defined for g
2
). This raises the issue of imposing limitations or filters
in the range of potential constraints that can be contained in the constraint
repository CON which is part of the architecture of Optimality Theory.
50
For consistency of exposition, G represents a grammatical category. If G has n particular values
or members, individual members are represented as g
i
(i = 1, 2, ...n). For example, if G is the
category of Gender in a three-way Gender system (Masculine, Feminine, Neuter), its members are
symbolized as g
1
, g
2
and g
3
(i = 1, 2, 3). When used without a subscript, g is a marked member of
G. γ is the particular occurrence of the morpho-syntactic features of a member of G. m is an
occurrence of marked phonological structure M in an output O.
117
In this dissertation I propose a filter on licensing constraints LICENSE(M,g)
which represents an application of the Schema/Filter Model of CON proposed by
Smith (2002/2005). Smith discusses the issue of filters on constraints in relation to
her ‘augmentation’ constraints (M/str). M/str constraints are markedness
constraints that make specific reference to strong positions. According to Smith,
not all logically possible augmentation constraints in strong positions (M/str) are
part of CON. For example, M/str markedness constraints exist only if the
markedness constraints (M) from which they are constructed refer to perceptually
prominent properties. As an illustration, a constraint like ONSET/σ
1
, which requires
that initial syllables have onsets, is a legitimate M/str constraint in CON because
the ONSET markedness constraint from which it is constructed enforces the
presence of an onset, which is perceptually prominent. In contrast, following the
same logic, a constraint like *MIDV/σ , which bans mid vowels in stressed
syllables, is not part of CON, due to the fact that mid vowels are not perceptually
prominent. In Smith’s model, illicit M/str constraints (M/str constraints for which
M does not refer to a perceptually prominent property) are not allowed to be part
of the constraint inventory due to the activity of substantive filters that block them.
The model proposed in this thesis applies the filter mechanism to
LICENSE(M,g) constraints such that only those licensing constraints are allowed in
CON for which g is a marked member of a grammatical category G. The filter
mechanism is shown in (51), which represents an application of Smith’s
Schema/Filter Model of CON:
118
(51) Figure 5 The Schema/Filter Model of CON applied to licensing
Free constraint Filter
construction functional factors CON
(M x g) ϕ < ϕ’
(a) (b) (c)
LICENSE(M,g) LICENSE(M,g) LICENSE(M,g)
LICENSE(M,g’) LICENSE(M,g’)
In the schematic illustration in (51), box (a) represents the potential range
of licensing constraints for marked phonological structure (M) for two members of
grammatical category G, a marked member (g) and an unmarked one (g’). The
range of potential licensing constraints is subject to a filter (box (b)) represented
by a functional factor such as frequency of occurrence (ϕ). The filter eliminates
the licensing constraint defined for g’, whose frequency of occurrence is higher
than that of g
51
. As the outcome of the activity of the filter, only the licensing
constraint LICENSE(M,g) emerges as part of CON (box (c)).
(51) represents the application of the filter on licensing constraints in the
case of a category G with two members, g and g’, of which g is the marked one. A
legitimate question surrounding the constraint filter is how it can deal with
grammatical categories consisting of more than two members. Let us examine a
more complex situation represented by a three-way grammatical category G
51
Recall that according to the frequency criterion for grammatical markedness, lower frequency of
occurrence determines the marked character of g as compared to g’.
119
represented by members g
1
, g
2
and g
3
such that g
1
< g
2
< g
3
with respect to
grammatical markedness.
In such a case, it is in principle possible to make two cuts along the
grammatical markedness dimension, one between g
3
and g
2
and one between g
2
and g
1
. This leaves us with two possibilities of filtering out licensing constraints.
First, it is possible that the filter rules out the licensing constraint for the least
marked category (g
1
), but allows the licensing constraints for the more marked
members (g
2
and g
3
) to be part of CON. Second, it is possible that both licensing
constraints for g
1
and g
2
are excluded from CON, and only the top-ranked g
3
is
allowed to have a licensing constraint. These two situations are presented in (52):
(52) Figure 6 Schema/Filter Model variants for a three-way category
Free constraint Filter
construction functional factors CON
(M x g) ϕ
3
< ϕ
2
< ϕ
1
LICENSE(M,g
1
) LICENSE(M,g
1
) LICENSE(M,g
2
)
LICENSE(M,g
2
) (a) LICENSE(M,g
2
) LICENSE(M,g
3
)
LICENSE(M,g
3
) LICENSE(M,g
3
)
LICENSE(M,g
1
)
(b) LICENSE(M,g
2
) LICENSE(M,g
3
)
LICENSE(M,g
3
)
If the activity of the filter is the one in (52a.), CON will contain both
LICENSE(M,g
2
) and LICENSE(M,g
3
) (and not LICENSE(M,g
1
)), but if the filter has
the activity in (52b.), only LICENSE(M,g
3
) will be part of CON. The two versions of
the filter lead to different predictions. Indeed, if the filter assumes the shape in
120
(52a.), marked phonological structure M may occur only in the Phonological
Structure of g
2
and g
3
and not in g
1
, or in all of them, or in none of the categories
52
.
If the activity of the filter is as in (52b.), M will occur only in g
3
, or in all
categories or in none of them. The case studies discussed in this dissertation do not
allow us to determine which of the two scenarios of the filter is the correct one, so
this issue is left for further research. There is also the possibility, illustrated in
Chapter 4, to group together values of a grammatical category, thus reducing the
inventory of possible licensing constraints, and then define licensing constraints
for the newly defined ‘lumped up’ categories. It is to be noted, however, that no
matter which version of the filter we adopt, no situations are predicted in which
marked phonological structure M is licensed in the least marked member (g
1
) of G,
but not in g
2
or g
3
. As we shall see, this is consistent with the factorial typology
discussed on cases with two-member categories.
In sum, the functional factor represented by frequency of occurrence of
inflected forms plays the role of a substantive filter on licensing constraints by
allowing only those LICENSE(M,g) constraints to be part of CON for which g is a
marked (and less frequent in usage) member of grammatical category G.
Furthermore, there are at least two important similarities between the MIM
phenomena investigated in this dissertation and the augmentation in prominent
positions discussed by Smith. In both cases the influence of functional factors on
phonological grammars is indirect and manifests itself as a force that affects the
52
See §5.2 for the factorial typology of the MIM schema.
121
inventory of actual constraints rather than, say, the ranking of constraints on a
hierarchy. Also, both models inevitably have to deal with the issue of gradient
functional forces that have categorical effects in the phonology. For instance, in
the case of augmentation in prominent positions, the initial syllable is
phonologically ‘stronger’ in categorical terms than the rest of the word, although
with respect to the functional, psycholinguistic aspect, strength can be said to
decrease gradually as one moves farther away in the word. A similar situation is
encountered with MIM effects, where a gradient parameter like frequency of
occurrence has a categorical effect on the phonological grammar. Such facts
justify the application of the Schema/Filter to MIM phenomena. Also, they call for
an investigation of how MIM effects emerge in natural languages and how exactly
phonological grammars can be shaped by functional factors like frequency of
occurrence. These issues have been dealt with in §5 of Chapter 2.
What is the ontological status of the substantive constraint filters on
licensing constraints discussed above? In particular, it is worth asking whether
they are part of Universal Grammar and how they are acquired. These questions
are part of a broader research agenda, which has to do with the status of constraint
schemas and their constraint construction, and will be left open at this point. It
should be noted, however, that grammatical markedness hierarchies are in all
likelihood learned (see Dressler et al. 2002, Dressler 2003) rather than innate. It
may well be the case that the constraint filters are also ‘learned’ in the sense that
their outcome is a CON where only licensing constraints are allowed for higher-
122
ranked categories on the grammatical markedness hierarchy. Smith (2002/2005)
favors an answer along similar lines (schemas, arguments and filters being
acquired rather than innate) for her account of augmentation in prominent
positions.
It should also be noted that as regards the relation between grammatical
markedness and frequency (ϕ), categories g
i
on a grammatical markedness
hierarchy are members of the same morpho-syntactic category. This means that
cross-category markedness relations (like Case-Number or Tense-Voice) are not
considered in this thesis. For example, no claims are made, based on relative
frequency, that a verbal category is more marked than a nominal category,
although the agenda for future research is open to exploring such relations.
Returning to definition (49), what it stipulates is a material implication of
the type M ⊃ g. That is, the constraint is satisfied only when the marked
phonological structure m occurs in the grammatical category g that is the marked
member of G. The material implication relation which holds between M and g is
not one of direct or indirect domination (as in Walker 2001b, 2004, 2005), but
rather one of property assignment in the sense that the presence of M in the
Phonological Structure of an output O entails that O carries in its Morphological
Structure the morpho-syntactic features for the marked member g of category G. It
should also be emphasized that the output O is a word constituent, rather than a
phrase or inflectional morpheme; marked phonological structure need not be
associated with a particular affix. A good example for this property is the case of
123
marked metrical structure. For instance, in Old Saxon (Chapter 4), phonologically
marked uneven trochees (HL) are licensed in words inflected for the marked
Oblique case. Although one may assume that morpho-syntactic features percolate
from the syntactic head to the word, it is the whole inflected output word that ends
up carrying the morpho-syntactic feature ‘oblique’ in MS that licenses the marked
metrical structure (HL) in PS.
In the definition of licensing of marked structure in the marked category,
the material implication is asymmetric (if ‘m implies γ’ is true, the reverse, ‘γ
implies m’, is not necessarily so). What (49) requires is not that all outputs
inflected for g (i.e. outputs that have instances γ of the features for g in their
Morphological Structure) contain instances m of phonological structure M, but that
all instances of M be part of the Phonological Structure of outputs inflected for g
in their Morphological Structure.
LICENSE(M,g) is satisfied whenever particular instances m of M occur in
outputs carrying the morpho-syntactic features of the marked member g of G in
their MS, and violated if m occurs in an output inflected for some other member of
G that is less marked than g (and more frequent in usage) or it occurs in an output
not inflected for G or in an uninflected output. Also, the statement of
morphological exponence in relation with the percolation of morpho-syntactic
features from syntactic heads to the word level has consequences for the way the
licensing constraint is evaluated, specifically, for the domain within which the
evaluation is done.
124
To see in more detail how these aspects play out in the assessment of
LICENSE(M,g), consider the Plural Definite of certain Italian nouns that start in a
vowel (Saltarelli and Calvano 1979). The feminine Italian Definite determiner has
the form la in the Singular, and when attached to a vowel-initial noun the final
vocalic segment of the determiner is deleted, in avoidance of hiatus (53a.). In the
Plural, the determiner is le, but its final vowel is retained (53b.):
(53)
a. /la
Def.
+entita/ → [len.ti.tá]
Sg. Def.
‘the entity’
b. /le
Def.
+entita/ → [le.en.ti.tá]
Pl. Def.
‘the entities’
Setting aside the fact that the Plural of such nouns is expressed only in the
determiner, we can note that in both situations the determiner and the noun form a
word. The relevant marked grammatical category (g) is ‘Plural’ and the marked
phonological structure (M) is ‘hiatus’
53
. If we examine the Phonological and
Morphological Structure of the Singular and Plural definite output forms in (53), it
can be seen that the Phonological Structure (PS) of the Plural word contains a
sequence of two vowels (VV), while hiatus is resolved in the Singular by deleting
the determiner vowel from PS. The relevant representations of Phonological
Structure (PS) and Morphological Structure (MS) of the two output words
representing the definites in (53) are shown below:
53
For ample discussion of hiatus as a marked structure and means of resolving hiatus see Casali
(1997, 1998) and the references therein.
125
(54) Figure 7 Morphological and Phonological Structure of Italian definite outputs
a. PS b. PS
σ σ σ σ σ σ σ
len.ti.tá le.en.ti.tá
Det Root (Sg.) Det Root (Pl.)
MS(Sg.) MS(Pl.)
The relevant licensing constraint is LICENSE(VV, PLURAL). An
examination of the representations in (54) shows that the Plural word (54b.)
satisfies the licensing constraint due to the fact that the marked phonological
configuration (hiatus) in PS entails the presence of the morpho-syntactic feature
‘plural’ of the marked grammatical category in the MS of the output word. Had
hiatus been present in the PS of an output with the unmarked ‘singular’ features in
MS, the constraint would have been violated.
So far we have seen the relevance of Phonological Structure (PS) in the
definition and evaluation of LICENSE(M,g). However, we still need to define more
precisely the phonological domain for which the PS in question is relevant. Failure
to circumscribe PS to a well-defined domain would predict that marked
phonological structure (M) may occur as licensed by morpho-syntactic features in
MS which are not relevant. For example, if PS is understood, respectively, as a
126
phonological/intonational utterance, phonological phrase or clitic group etc.
54
, the
hiatus structure discussed above would potentially be licensed anywhere within the
domain, even in for segments with no affiliation to the Plural, leading to odd
typological predictions. This is why a restriction is necessary on PS. I propose that
for the purpose of the phenomena discussed in this dissertation PS be defined as
the smallest prosodic unit (including segments as prosodic units) which contains
all of the surface segments whose underlying correspondents belong to the
smallest morpho-syntactic unit properly containing some morpho-syntactic
marker
55
. As an application of the definition to the Italian case considered above,
the smallest morpho-syntactic unit containing the ‘plural’ morpho-syntactic
specification is /le+Plural/, but the smallest morpho-syntactic unit properly
containing it is the DP (consisting by a determiner followed by an NP). The
identification of the domain is straightforward: in the underlying representation, it
is composed of all the segments belonging to the DP; in surface, it consists of all
the correspondents of those segments. Now in the prosodic structure of the output,
the minimal unit containing all the segments is the prosodic word (PrWd), so we
can say that in Italian Plurals hiatus is licensed in the PrWd. This is a general
procedure which works in other cases as well, as we shall see below.
To take a further example of licensing constraint evaluation, consider the
hypothetical case of a language where the category of Number has two values,
54
See Nespor and Vogel (1986) for categories in Prosodic Phonology.
55
In this thesis the relevant unit considered is the segment. It should be noted, however, that
sometimes it may be necessary case to consider sub-segmental units, as the case is for the
autosegment approach to Italian and Romance Plural formation briefly discussed in Chapter 5 §3.
127
Singular and Plural, and palatalized consonants C
j
(cross-linguistically, a type of
marked phonological structure) are attested only in the grammatically marked
Plural
56
. The distribution of plain and palatalized consonants is shown in (55):
(55) Table 12 Plain and palatalized consonants in Romanian Number
Singular Plural
C
j
No Yes
C Yes Yes
The instantiation of the licensing constraint in the case under examination
is LICENSE(C
j
, PLURAL). The constraint is violated by output forms containing
palatalized consonants that carry the morpho-syntactic feature ‘singular’
(C
j
/SINGULAR). Outputs that contain only the unmarked phonological structure
represented by plain consonants (C) do not fall under the scope of licensing. The
evaluation of outputs on LICENSE(C
j
, PLURAL) is given in (56):
(56) Table 13 Assessment of LICENSE(C
j
, PLURAL)
LICENSE(C
j
, PLURAL)
C
j
/SG. *
C
j
/PL. 3
C/SG. N/A
C/PL. N/A
56
The hypothetical example represents a simplification, for expositional purposes, of the situation
encountered in Standard Romanian, where the distribution of plain and palatalized consonants in
Singulars and Plurals is essentially the one considered here. A detailed analysis of the Romanian
data is provided in Chapter 5.
128
Returning to the locality issue in the assessment of LICENSE(M,g) already
discussed for Italian, we note that this time the smallest morpho-syntactic unit
properly containing the ‘plural’ specification is the NP (or, if Number projections
are considered, NumP, as in Chapter 5, (100)). As for Phonological Structure, the
smallest unit containing all the segments affiliated to the NP is again the prosodic
word.
The assessment in (56) shows the benefit of using LICENSE(M,g) in
instances of marked phonological structure occurring in a grammatically marked
category. While prohibiting marked structure (C
j
) outside the marked category, the
constraint does not penalize the presence of unmarked material (C) in that
category, which is a desirable result both empirically and theoretically. Indeed, if
the directionality of the material implication relation in definition (49) were ‘γ
implies m’, this would mean that LICENSE(M,g) is violated by outputs containing
unmarked phonological material in the marked category, which is, in point of
phonological typology, an odd result. In this regard, a short comparison with the
FIAT-STRUC constraint family proposed by MacBride (2004) suggests itself.
Working within an output-oriented version of Optimality Theory where
morphological generalizations are encoded by constraints (along the lines of
Russell (1999))
57
, MacBride introduces a SYN:PHON schema, according to which
an output with syntactic property SYN displays the phonological property PHON.
For instance, in a language where the Past Tense is the vocalic suffix -i, the
57
Hammond (1995) makes a similar proposal by questioning the relevance of the input level in
Optimality Theory.
129
relevant FIAT-STRUC constraint is PAST: ]
stem
i and demands that all Past Tense
forms consist of a stem plus the suffix -i. It appears that the SYN:PHON schema not
only leads to an considerable proliferation of parochial constraints but is also less
well equipped to deal with phonological asymmetries related to grammatical
marking. Setting aside the theoretical implications of OT models where the burden
of expressing morphological constituents is placed exclusively on constraints and
the role of lexical representations is reduced to a minimum, the SYN:PHON schema
can at best instantiate the ‘γ implies m’ relation and require the presence of a
particular phonological structure in a grammatical category, a requirement that is
not empirically supported. The licensing schema adopted in this dissertation does
not demand that the marked phonological structure be present in the marked
grammatical category, which would be too strong a statement. It allows for the
presence of both marked and unmarked phonological structure in that category
while forbidding marked phonological structure in the unmarked category, a result
to which the language cases examined in Chapters 4-6 lend empirical support.
In this section I introduced a positive licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g) for
marked phonological structure in grammatically marked categories as an essential
ingredient of the Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization. In the remainder of
the chapter I will present the MIM constraint schema and the associated factorial
typology.
130
5. The Marked in the Marked Schema
5.1 The emergence of the Marked in the Marked Schema
To see how the phonological asymmetry emerges between categories different
with respect to their grammatical markedness status, let us discuss the interaction
of LICENSE(M,g) with (context-free) faithfulness and markedness.
Several logical possibilities suggest themselves. First, undominated
LICENSE(M,g) precludes the occurrence of marked phonological material M in the
unmarked category
58
. For example, let us imagine a scenario where M is attested
only in the grammatically marked category Plural, and banned in every other
category that is not Plural (in particular in the unmarked Singular or in items not
inflected for Number), where only unmarked phonological structure occurs. The
Plural-Singular asymmetry manifests itself in that the former category can contain
both marked (M) and unmarked material, whereas the Singular does not contain
M.
In terms of constraints, this result is achieved by the constraint hierarchy in
(57), which I label Marked in the Marked (MIM) Schema:
(57) The Marked in the Marked Schema
LICENSE(M,g) » FAITH » *M
58
Undominated licensing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the MIM effect. If context-
free markedness dominates faithfulness, the outcome is lack of variation (§5.2)
131
According to (57), M cannot occur outside g (Plural), but there may be
instances of outputs inflected for G that sponsor unmarked material. This does not
preclude the existence of unmarked phonological structure in g, for instance due to
the presence of such structure in the input.
The activity of the MIM Schema will be exemplified by the case studies in
Chapters 4-6. For practical purposes, the types of marked phonological structure M
are classified into metrical (foot structure, 58a.), segmental (segment makeup and
complexity, 58b.) and phonotactic (segment sequences, 58c.) as follows:
(58) Table 14 Applications of the MIM Schema
Marked structure (M) Marked category (g) LICENSE(M,g) Language
a. Metrical
Uneven trochee (HL)
59
Case:
Obl. (> Dir.)
LIC(HL, OBL.) Old
Saxon
b. Segmental
Consonant with secondary
articulation (C
SEC.
)
Number:
Pl. (> Sg.)
LIC(C
SEC.
, PL.) Romanian
c. Phonotactic
Intervocalic stop (VTV)
Voice:
Pass. (> Act.)
LIC(VTV,PASS.) Mayak
The classification of marked structure into metrical (58a.), segmental
(58b.) and phonotactic (58c.) does not have an independent theoretical status and
represents an expositional means of illustrating the applications of the MIM
Schema at various levels of representation. As we discuss the individual cases, we
will see that the MIM schema is part of the grammar of the respective languages
59
The abbreviations in Table (58) are as follows: H = heavy syllable, L = light syllable, Obl. =
Oblique case, Dir. = Direct case, Sg. = Singular, Pl. = plural, Act. = Active voice, Pass. = Passive
voice. Marked members of grammatical categories are given in bold type.
132
and interacts with other OT constraints. Considerable complexity may arise when
the schema interacts with phonotactic requirements (as in Romanian, Chapter 5) or
allophonic variation (as in Mayak, Chapter 6), but the picture is essentially the
same, marked in the marked phenomena.
Before we spell out the factorial typology associated with the MIM schema
and the typological predictions it makes, it is worth considering an alternative
approach to MIM phenomena. If for the grammatical category G the marked
phonological pattern M occurs only in the Phonological Structure of outputs
inflected for the marked member g
2
of G and not in outputs inflected for the
unmarked member g
1
(g
2
> g
1
in point of grammatical markedness and ϕ
1
> ϕ
2
in
point of frequency), one could entertain the solution of replacing LICENSE (M,g) by
(negative) markedness constraints of the type *M/g
1
60
. For ease of exposition,
consider the case where G is the category of Number and g
1
and g
2
are Singular
and Plural, respectively. The relevant *M/g
1
constraint is *M/Sg. and is violated
for each occurrence of M in the Phonological Structure of outputs inflected for the
Singular. The main advantage of such an approach, which is essentially along the
lines of Smith (2004b), would rest in the fact that contextual markedness
constraints can be constructed in a straightforward fashion from instances of *M
60
Thanks to Elliott Moreton for bringing this line of analysis to my attention.
133
and there is no need to demonstrate the markedness of the phonological structure
involved
61
.
If undominated, *M/Sg. (in interaction with faithfulness and category-
neutral *M) leads to grammars in which M is prohibited in the (unmarked)
Singular, but allowed in the (marked) Plural and also possibly in other
grammatical categories or in uninflected words
62
. Also, the alternative approach in
question would still require a filter mechanism that legitimizes only *M/Sg. (and
not *M/Pl.) as part of CON.
Finally, as already noted, the *M/g approach potentially predicts situations
where M is prohibited in the unmarked member of G, but allowed in the marked
one and also possibly in other grammatical categories or in uninflected words, for
example, languages in which M is not allowed in the Singular, but allowed in the
Plural and, say, in adverbs or uninflected adjectives. The positive licensing
approach proposed in this dissertation is more constrained in the sense that it
predicts languages where M occurs in the marked member of G, but not in the
unmarked member of G or, say, uninflected forms. Such are the cases discussed in
Chapters 4-6 as illustrations of MIM phenomena. This is not to say that cases like
the ones which can be predicted by the *M/g model do not exist, but rather that
there is no data at this point to document them. What needs to be emphasized is the
61
However, recall that in OT structure M counts as marked if it can be shown that there exists a
markedness constraint against it, so the relativized markedness approach hinted at here would still
require a demonstration of the adequacy of the *M constraints employed.
62
See §5.2 for detailed discussion of the factorial typology associated with MIM effects.
134
fact that the two approaches make slightly different predictions as to the
occurrence of marked phonological material M in (un)inflected outputs.
Having discussed the formulation of the licensing constraints and the MIM
schema, we can now turn to the predictions that follow from the factorial typology
associated with it.
5.2 Factorial typology
The benefits of an optimality-theoretic approach to marked in the marked
phenomena become apparent visible if we consider the factorial typology
associated with the MIM Schema, which is a particular constraint configuration,
not a fixed ranking. The three constraints that are part of the MIM Schema give
rise to a factorial typology. The logically possible situations are presented below.
First, there is full contrast
63
(marked structure M can occur both inside and
outside marked category g, as long as it is underlying). Full contrast is seen in
grammars where general faithfulness dominates both licensing and context-free
markedness (*M):
(59) Full contrast
FAITH » *M, LICENSE(M,g)
63
For the concepts of full contrast and lack of variation, see Kager (1999, to appear).
135
A second possibility is represented by lack of variation, a situation in
which marked structure M never occurs in a language, irrespective of the
grammatical category for whose morpho-syntactic features outputs specified in
Morphological Structure. Lack of variation ensues when context-free markedness
(*M) dominates faithfulness (*M » FAITH). Lack of variation patterns emerge by
freely ranking LICENSE(M,g) within the *M » FAITH hierarchy:
(60) Lack of variation
(LICENSE(M,g)) » *M » (LICENSE(M,g)) » FAITH » (LICENSE(M,g))
If context-free markedness (*M) is ranked over FAITH as in the constraint
hierarchy (60), the occurrence of marked phonological structure (M) is banned
across the board, regardless of grammatical category. Undominated LICENSE(M,g)
has the effect that M is excluded from the unmarked category, but the fact that *M
dominates general faithfulness will not allow M to surface in other situations
either.
A third conceivable situation is represented by the MIM Schema proper,
repeated in (61):
(61) The Marked in the Marked Schema
LICENSE(M,g) » FAITH » *M
136
To summarize, the MIM Schema and the associated factorial typology
make the right predictions regarding the range of phonological structures that
occur, under relatively similar conditions, in grammatical categories on a
markedness scale. The following range of phenomena is predicted:
(62) Patterns predicted by the factorial typology of the MIM schema
(a) Marked in the Marked (M in g, but not in the unmarked category)
(b) Full contrast (M both inside and outside g)
(c) Lack of variation (M prohibited, irrespective of category)
What we do not see are situations where marked structure M occurs solely
in the unmarked counterpart of g. For example, we do not expect, under general
similarity of phonological factors, to see a language where the Singular can
sponsor marked material M that the Plural does not. It is at this point that the
benefit of assuming Optimality Theory as the theoretical framework for analyzing
MIM effects becomes apparent. The grammars that can be constructed on the basis
of the three constraints (*M, FAITH and LICENSE(M,g)) make the right typological
predictions, thus justifying the line of analysis (see Chapter 5 §3 for an illustration
of the factorial typology on the category of Number in Romance). In contrast, a
rule-based approach does not yield this result in the same unitary fashion as
factorial typology, which is intrinsic to Optimality Theory. Furthermore,
optimality-theoretic analyses such as the ones proposed in this dissertation for
137
instances of MIM illustrate the principle labeled ‘homogeneity of target/
heterogeneity of process’ (McCarthy 2002). According to this principle, there is a
variety of processes that may occur in order to meet the requirements of a single
output target, as expressed by a markedness constraint. The way in which the
markedness constraint is satisfied hinges upon the ranking of faithfulness
constraints and the structural conditions in the output under evaluation.
Specifically, configurations in which marked phonological material M occurs in
outputs inflected for a marked grammatical category can emerge via diverse
processes. For example, they can be created by foot construction processes
(uneven trochees in the Old Saxon Oblique case, Chapter 4) or by faithful parsing
of underlying segmental material (intervocalic voiceless stops in the Mayak
Passive Voice, Chapter 6). The outcome of such processes is nevertheless unitary
in that they yield ‘marked in the marked’ output forms. The success of the
optimality-theoretic MIM Schema approach to such diverse cases stems exactly
from the ability of OT tools to handle a variety of patterns that can be subsumed to
one general property (‘marked in the marked’). In contrast, a rule-based approach
would require a different rule apparatus for each situation and would be unable to
capture the unifying factor behind the MIM property.
6. Summary
In this chapter I introduced the theoretical apparatus employed in the dissertation
to investigate the phonological correlate of grammatical markedness. In particular,
I discussed aspects of Optimality Theory, the theoretical framework assumed in
138
this work, that have to do with the functional grounding of constraints. This was
necessary in light of the fact that the claim defended in the dissertation rests on
performance-related phenomena.
Two approaches to licensing of phonological material in prominent
positions were discussed, Positional Faithfulness and Positional Markedness. As
for the specific mechanism responsible for the occurrence, other things equal, of
marked phonological structure in marked grammatical categories, I proposed a
positional markedness schema labeled ‘Marked in the Marked (MIM)’. As part of
the schema, I introduced a family of functionally grounded positive licensing
constraints LICENSE(M,G). The predictions of the MIM Schema were laid out by
discussing the factorial typology associated with it.
139
CHAPTER 4
MARKED METRICAL STRUCTURE IN OLD SAXON
0. Introduction
According to the hypothesis advanced in the preceding chapters, marked
grammatical categories have the ability to license marked phonological structure to
an extent that is higher or equal than unmarked grammatical categories. I claim
that a word carrying the morpho-syntactic features of the marked grammatical
category in its Morphological Structure represents a kind of ‘privileged position’
akin to the privileged positions described in phonology. These claims form the
underpinnings of the Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization stated in
Chapter 3.
MIM phenomena can be illustrated by the ability of marked categories to
allow marked metrical structure. In this chapter I bring evidence from the Old
Saxon Case system to bear on the claim that the inflected word that carries the
morpho-syntactic features of the marked case (Dative-Instrumental or Oblique
case) has the privilege to license uneven trochees as a particular type of marked
metrical structure. In contrast, the grammatically unmarked case (Nominative-
Accusative or Direct case) prohibits the occurrence of the uneven trochee in the
Phonological Structure of the respective output word. Crucially, the inflectional
markers in the Nominative and Oblique are both represented by the high vowel /u/.
The general mechanism assumed to drive the phonological asymmetry
between categories on a grammatical markedness hierarchy is positive licensing.
140
Specifically, uneven (HL) trochees are licensed in the Oblique case. In §1 I
introduce the Old Saxon data and state the relevant descriptive generalizations on
the language’s metrical system and inflectional paradigms. §2 discusses the status
of the uneven trochee as a type of marked phonological structure. In §3 I define
the positional licensing constraint for uneven trochees in Oblique forms and I lay
out an optimality-theoretic analysis of the data. §4 deals with an apparent
exception to the occurrence of uneven trochees in a grammatically unmarked
category and discusses the applicability of the alternative Positional Faithfulness
schema. Finally, §5 states the conclusions of the chapter.
1. Data and descriptive generalizations
Old Saxon (Old Low German) is an extinct West Germanic language for which
records are attested between 750 and 1050 AD. The data used for the illustration of
the phenomena are drawn from traditional Old Saxon grammars (Holthausen 1921,
Gallée 1910, Cathey 2000). Indirect evidence comes from West Germanic
languages to which Old Saxon has a close resemblance, most importantly Old
English.
Like other languages that belong to the West Germanic branch (Old
English in particular), Old Saxon has a weight-sensitive, moraic trochee system
(Dresher and Lahiri 1991, Hayes 1995, Bermúdez-Otero 1999, 2001, McCartney
2002 etc.). Cross-linguistically as well as in Old Saxon, moraic trochees are either
left-headed bimoraic units consisting of two light syllables (LL) or units composed
141
of one heavy syllable (H) (Hayes 1995). These metrical patterns are illustrated in
(63):
(63) Standard moraic feet in Old Saxon
a. (hé.ru) ‘sword’ (LL)
64
b. (fí.ri)na ‘iniquity’ (LL)L
c. (hé.ri)(tò.go) ‘duke’ (LL)(LL)
d. (bó:g) ‘bow’ (H)
(wáld) ‘forest’
As shown in (63a.) and (63d.), bisyllabic and monosyllabic words are
parsed exhaustively into (LL) or (H) moraic trochees. (63c.) illustrates words with
an even number of light syllables with exhaustive and iterative parsing. (63b.)
represents a word with an odd number of light syllables that displays final syllable
extrametricality.
As expected in a moraic trochee language, there is a word minimum
condition on substantive words, which are necessarily bimoraic. Following a
convention widely adopted in the historical linguistics of Germanic languages, Old
Saxon stems, which are often monosyllabic, are classified into two types, ‘light’
and ‘heavy’. The classification into ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ syllables is based on the
phonological behavior of high vowels following the stem. After a ‘light’ syllable,
64
The syllable carrying primary stress is given in bold type.
142
the high vowel is retained, but it is deleted following a ‘heavy’ syllable
65
. ‘Light’
stems are of the CV or CVC type and ‘heavy’ stems are CV or CVCC. This
classification implicitly refers to the underlying form of the stems and has no
bearing on the weight of the outputs.
Considerations of word minimality indicate that in Old Saxon the inventory
of heavy syllables includes CV and CVC(C), all of which are bimoraic. For
convenience, I will label the ‘light’ CV and CVC stem type ‘l’ and the ‘heavy’
CV and CVCC stem type, ‘h’. Note that these are descriptive labels, with no
theoretical import and that there is no necessary connection between the syllable
weight of an output form and membership in the ‘l’ or ‘h’ type. For example, a
word like the Past Tense form sat (‘I sat’) is bimoraic (heavy syllable), but is
traditionally classified as an ‘l’ stem.
The canonical morphological structure of Old Saxon words consists of a
stem/root normally followed by an inflectional affix that merges the expression of
Number and Case in nominals. For example, the citation form of a noun like heru
(‘sword’) consists of an ‘l’ stem (her) followed by the singular nominative affix (-
u), whereas the base form of a noun like bog (‘bow’) instantiates a bare
nominative ‘h’ stem (null nominal marking)
66
.
65
The behavior of ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ syllables is expressed by the descriptive rule of High Vowel
Deletion (see (64) below).
66
The nominals represent output forms. Bare nominals are underlyingly vowel-final, but the
vocalic affix deletes as a consequence of High Vowel Deletion after an ‘h’ syllable.
143
Old Saxon has a relatively rich inflectional system, which distinguishes as
many as five cases: Nominative-Accusative (‘Direct Case’), Genitive and Dative-
Instrumental (‘Oblique’). The Nominative and Accusative endings are merged, and
so are the Dative-Instrumental endings in certain inflectional paradigms
(‘declensions’). The identity of grammatical markers for Dative and Instrumental
and the syncretism of those forms in inflectional paradigms allows for the
grouping of the two cases under the label ‘Oblique’
67
, and likewise for the
Nominative-Accusative (‘Direct’).
In Old Saxon, like in other Indo-European languages, nominal stems select
their inflectional endings based on membership in a lexical inflectional paradigm.
In this dissertation I focus on two such paradigms, traditionally known as ‘u-
stems’ and ‘o-stems’. In these paradigms, Case expression is leveled to a large
extent, so the Nominative-Accusative and the Dative-Instrumental (Oblique) have
similar markers. The fact that the Nominative and the Accusative (‘Direct Case’),
on the one hand, and the Dative and the Instrumental (‘Oblique Case’), on the
other hand, are lumped together based on their inflectional and syncretic properties
is not expected to have significant consequences on frequency counts as compared
to the counts of individual categories (like ‘Nominative’ or ‘Dative’).
There is indirect evidence that this is really the case in general in languages
with a similar Case system and where syncretism phenomena manifest themselves.
67
The Dative-Instrumental syncretism is not uncommon in Indo-European. For example, in
Ancient Greek the Dative, Locative and Instrumental are syncretized into one case form. See also
Chapter 3 §4 for arguments for grouping together the Dative and Instrumental and the Nominative
and Accusative, respectively.
144
For example, Greenberg (1966a:32)
68
used a similar grouping for three other Indo-
European languages, Sanskrit, Latin and Russian, based on Case syncretism in
those languages. The frequency count ratios of ‘Direct’ over ‘Oblique’ cases range
from 1.87 (Russian) to 2.62 (Sanskrit).
As in other languages that belong to the West Germanic group, a property
of the Old Saxon phonological system is that underlying high vowel suffixes /u, i/
are generally deleted whenever their presence in outputs would lead to uneven
(HL) trochees. The process, known as ‘high vowel deletion’ (HVD) is well
documented in West Germanic (for a similar phenomenon in Old English, whose
morpho-phonology is very close to that of Old Saxon, see Peinovich 1979 and
Hogg 1997, 2000). The descriptive generalization, which I owe to Campbell
(1959), is the following: “High vowels are deleted in unstressed word-final
syllables when preceded by a heavy stressed syllable or a light stressed syllable
plus another syllable.” (Campbell 1959: §345-6). In a rule-based format HVD of
-u is stated in (64):
(64) HVD (Peinovich 1979)
–Cons V
+High → Ø / CV C C
1
___#
+Back CV
68
See Chapter 2 §1.2.2 for Greenberg’s frequency counts.
145
In the morphology of Old Saxon nominals, HVD is relevant in the
inflectional paradigm of u- and o-stem nouns. The Nominative-Accusative and
Dative-Instrumental (Oblique) case forms are exemplified in (65). In both
paradigms, the case markers for the case forms are underlyingly homophonous
(-u). After ‘h’ stems, -u is deleted in the Nominative-Accusative, but retained in
the Oblique (65a.). After ‘l’ stems, -u is always retained (65b.)
(65) Table 15 Case marking in u-stem nouns (Singular)
69
Nominative-Accusative Dative-Instrumental Gloss
a. (lúft) /luft-u/ *luftu
(H) *(HL)
(lúf.tu) /luft-u
O.
/
(HL)
‘air’
(bó g) /bo g-u
NA
/ *bo gu
(H) *(HL)
(bó.gu) /bo g-u
O.
/
(HL)
‘bow’
b. (sú.nu) /sun-u
NA
/
(LL)
(sú.nu) /sun-u
O
/
(LL)
‘son’
(hé.ru) /her-u
NA
/
(LL)
(hé.ru) /her-u
O
/
(LL)
‘sword’
It appears that while in the Nominative-Accusative only even (LL or H)
trochees are allowed, the Dative-Instrumental allows for one more trochee type,
the metrically marked (HL) trochee, which is a relatively unusual behavior in light
of the universal foot inventory (Hayes 1985, 1995). As Hayes points out, trochaic
feet (* .) do not exhibit durational contrasts and their head and tail tend to have
even duration, hence a (putatively universal) dispreference for uneven trochees (I
return to the issue of uneven trochees as a type of marked phonological structure in
§2).
69
NA = Nominative-Accusative, O = Oblique (Dative-Instrumental)
‘h’
‘l’
146
There is one more area of Old Saxon morphology where the high vowel -u
is an inflectional suffix. This is the conjugation of ‘strong’ verbs, whose first
person Singular present form has the ending -u. Interestingly, the verbal suffix is
retained in outputs irrespective of the phonological structure of the stem. Uneven
trochees are attested in the first person Singular Old Saxon ‘strong’ verbs:
(66) The first person singular present of ‘strong’ verbs
a. ‘l’ stem bir-u ‘I carry’ (LL)
b. ‘h’ stem wir -u ‘I become’ (HL)
Although I will not discuss verbal forms, it appears that similar processes
are active in nouns and verbs that license marked metrical structure (HL trochees)
in the two lexical categories. Both in nouns and verbs the marked metrical
structure is allowed in grammatically marked categories, Oblique Case in nouns
and first person in verbs. The MIM generalization is testable, however, only in
nouns, because in the verbal domain the affix of the third person (-id, -od) and
second person (-is, -os) are different from the affix of the first person (-u).
Returning to the nominal domain, in feminine o-stem nouns the
Nominative-Accusative singular suffix is -a (or, sometimes, -e). Historically, the
Nominative affix is a former Accusative marker that was generalized to the
Nominative (Cathey 2000). However, among the o-stems there are a number of
nouns that do not take the Nominative suffix and surface as bare ‘h’ stems, on a
147
par with bare u-stems. The occurrence of such forms can be accounted for if we
take into account the fact that they reflect an older stage in which the Nominative
ending was -u, which underwent HVD when affixed to ‘h’ stems:
(67) Bare o-nouns
arf ‘demand’ * arfu
N(A)
non ‘noon’ *no nu
N(A)
Before concluding the section on Old Saxon data, a remark is in place as to
the assumptions that underlie the analysis that will be proposed. In particular, one
may wonder whether the high vowel -u in the Nominative-Accusative of u-stem
forms is indeed a case ending or just an epenthetic segment inserted for reasons of
foot well-formedness with ‘l’ stems, but not with ‘h’ stems, where there is enough
phonological material to form an (even) trochee. A possible answer to this
question lies in the paradigmatic coherence of the u-stem class, where both ‘h’ and
‘l’ stems take nominal endings. Also, cognate endings in the Nominative-
Accusative are attested in closely related Germanic languages (Old English).
Diachronically, the endings represent the outcome of the evolution of Proto-
Germanic case affixes.
For completeness, full inflectional paradigms are given below for an ‘l’
stem (heru, ‘sword’) and an ‘h’ stem (luft, ‘air’).
148
(68) Table 16 Old Saxon u-stem paradigms
a. ‘l’ stem
Singular Plural
N heru heri
G heries hero
D heru herun
A heru heri
b. ‘h’ stem
Singular Plural
N luft-Ø lufti
G lufties lufto
D luftu luftun
A luft-Ø lufti
The overt absence of the high vowel endings in the Nominative-Accusative
of ‘h’ stems can therefore be viewed as deletion of an expected -u ending, and the
occurrence of -u in ‘l’ stems reflects an underlying segment rather than an
epenthetic one. Also, the fact that CVC words are allowed in Old Saxon shows
that epenthesis would be unmotivated, since CVC monosyllables contain enough
phonological material to build an (H) trochee. Incidentally, ‘l’ stem nouns with
expressed Nominative-Accusative ending are more numerous than bare h stems,
and historically both stem types started out with overt inflection. Under such
circumstances, it appears more plausible to analyze the Old Saxon data as
displaying HVD in ‘h’ stems rather than high vowel epenthesis in ‘l’ stems.
Processes in closely related languages (Old English, Hogg 1997, 2000) support
this view.
149
2. Uneven trochees as marked prosodic structure
An important component of the account proposed for Old Saxon Case forms is
represented by the type of phonological structure that is assumed to be licensed in
the output words inflected for marked grammatical category Oblique. In Old
Saxon, the relevant structure is the uneven trochee.
The claim I make is that marked metrical structure (HL) occurs in the
Oblique due to a mechanism that licenses this kind of structure in the words
carrying the ‘oblique’ morpho-syntactic feature. Due to its relatively low
frequency of occurrence, the grammatically marked Oblique is claimed to be able
to license marked metrical structure
70
.
Research on stress systems (Prince 1990, Hayes 1985, 1995, Kager 1993,
1995 etc.) has shown that cross-linguistically there is a preference for even
trochees over uneven ones (and the reverse for iambs)
71
. This is not to say that
uneven trochees are unattested altogether in natural languages. In fact Mellander
(2001, 2003) lists a number of languages in which the respective feet emerge as a
result of phonological processes (Mohawk, Selayarese, Central Slovak, Gidabal
etc.). McCall (1999) analyzes the Ancient Egyptian metrical system as
accommodating uneven trochees and Revithiadou (2004) discusses phonological
processes that lead to this type of foot in Chimalapa Zoque and dialects of Cypriot
70
No frequency data were available for Old Saxon corpora. One can assume, however, similarity
with statistical data in other Indo-European languages (Latin, Sanskrit), where the Oblique case
was shown to occur with lower frequency than the Nominative-Accusative (see the illustrations in
Chapter 2).
71
OT encodes the markedness of uneven trochees using constraints like RHHRM (‘rhythmic
harmony’) in Prince (1990) and Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004).
150
Greek. The relative rarity of uneven trochees in metrical inventories across
languages constitutes an indication that the said trochee type is a marked
phonological structure.
The scarcity of metrical systems with uneven trochees has been assumed to
be grounded in perception. It appears that in cases of intensity contrasts, hearers
prefer groupings with the most prominent element first – trochees, and in cases of
durational contrast, groupings with the most prominent element second – iambs.
The formulation of the asymmetry was given by Hayes (1995) in the form of the
Iambic/Trochaic Law.
Two processes are assumed to underlie the formation of (HL) trochees,
trochaic lengthening and trochaic shortening, respectively:
(69) Processes that create HL trochees (Mellander 2003)
a. Trochaic Lengthening: /LL/ → (HL)
b. Trochaic Shortening: /HH/ → (HL)
Uneven trochees should, therefore, be included in the foot inventory
available universally (a similar claim is made by Rice 1992). Thus the uneven
trochee represents a marked metrical structure that can occur in certain languages
alongside even trochees, but apparently there are no languages where the only type
of trochee is uneven.
151
As a matter of processes that can create prosodic and metrical structure, let
us refer to the mechanism available in Old Saxon for assigning segment weight.
According to Morén (1997, 1999) there are two sources of weight, coercion and
distinctiveness. As Morén notes, while coerced weight stems from restrictions on
surface moraicity in certain phonological contexts (weight by position, foot
binarity etc.) and is subject to distributional restrictions based on sonority,
distinctive weight is essentially underlying moraicity that translates in a surface
contrast. Based on the properties of the prosodic system of Old Saxon, I assume
that weight in this language is an instance of distinctive weight, at least for vowels.
Indeed, if we examine the segment inventory of Old Saxon, we find that length
(which correlates with weight) is distinctive for vowels, as illustrated by the
existence of minimal pairs (e.g. wan (‘lacking’) - wan (‘hope’), hof (‘house and
yard’) - hof (‘hoof’) or budil (‘bailiff’) - budil (‘bag’) etc. ) (Cathey 2000).
The Old Saxon facts are particularly striking in that, unlike other cases
described in the literature where uneven trochees arise, the possibility of
occurrence of uneven trochees in this language is not purely phonologically
conditioned, but it is also morphologically conditioned. Moreover, it is in the
grammatically marked Oblique case that (HL) trochees can occur, and not in the
unmarked Nominative-Accusative, where the particular metrical structure is
avoided through high vowel apocope (deletion in word-final position). This serves
as evidence for the licensing strategy assumed to be at work in the Oblique word,
152
which is considered to be a position privileged by language use factors in the sense
that it is capable of inducing the positional markedness phenomenon.
The ontological status of the uneven trochee can be easily accommodated
in Optimality Theory, where determining the trochee type(s) allowed in a language
is a matter of constraint interaction rather than a universal property. In OT, The
markedness of the uneven trochees is expressed by the existence of constraints on
foot form such as RHHRM (‘rhythmic harmony’) in Prince (1990) and Prince and
Smolensky (1993/2004), which militates in favor of balanced trochees. Similar
remarks have been made about properties of other metrical phenomena, such as
weight sensitivity. For example, Alber (1997) maintains that weight sensitivity is
better understood in terms of constraint interaction within the metrical system of
the language rather than as a two-value parameter with language-specific setting.
Also, as we shall see in the following section, a markedness constraint *(HL)
exists against uneven trochees and including this constraint in the Marked in the
Marked constraint schema leads to the right typological predictions.
3. Analysis
Consider first the phonological expression of Case in ‘h’ stems. As already shown,
with such stems the high vowel case marker surfaces in the marked Dative-
Instrumental (Oblique), even at the risk of generating an uneven (HL) trochee
ending in -u. In contrast, the (homophonous) case ending undergoes HVD in the
unmarked Nominative-Accusative.
153
This indicates that faithfulness to underlying segmental material (enforced
by MAX-IO, McCarthy and Prince 1995) dominates the markedness constraint that
militates against uneven trochees. The relevant constraints are given in (70) and
(71):
(70) MAX-IO ‘Input segments have output correspondents.’
(71) *(HL) ‘No uneven (HL) trochees.’
Markedness constraints against uneven (HL) trochees have been shown to
be active across languages. For example, Prince (1990) and Hayes (1995) employ
a constraint dubbed EVEN-TROCHEE or Grouping Harmony, whose activity rules
out uneven trochees. Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004) employ RHHARM and
Gouskova (2003, 2004) uses *(HL) under the name of GRPHARM. Recently, Elías-
Ulloa (2004) uses the Grouping Harmony constraint as *(HL).
The general affix retention in Oblique forms and the ranking of MAX-IO
and *(HL) that drives it are exemplified shown in (72) for an ‘h’ stem inflected for
the Oblique case:
(72) Table 17 MAX-IO » *(HL) (affix retention in Oblique forms)
/luft-u
O
/ MAX-IO *(HL)
a. [(lúft)]
O
*!
b. " [(lúf.tu)]
O
*
154
In (72) the fully faithful candidate (72b.) wins over the deletion candidate
(72a.) due to a fatal violation of MAX-IO incurred by the latter. With regard to foot
form, candidate (72a.) is well formed (H trochee), but candidate (72b.) instantiates
a violation of the foot form condition because it consists of an uneven trochee
(left-headed HL foot).
If we now turn to the unmarked Nominative-Accusative of ‘h’ stems, we
can see that this time the Case ending does not surface. Recall that in this case the
uneven trochee is not tolerated:
(73) [(luft)]
NA
/luft-u
NA
/ *[(luf.tu)]
NA
‘air’
[(bo g)]
NA
/bo g-u
NA
/ *[(bo .gu)]
NA
‘bow’
I attribute the asymmetry between the Nominative and Oblique to the
activity of an instance of the positive licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g) introduced
in Chapter 3. The relevant constraint is defined in (74):
(74) LICENSE(HL, OBL.)
Let
i. m be an occurrence of phonological structure (HL) in an output O
ii. γ be an occurrence of the morpho-syntactic feature(s) for the value
‘oblique’ of the grammatical category of Case
155
Then m in the Phonological Structure (PS) of an output O implies γ in the
Morphological Structure (MS) of same output O.
As shown in Chapter 3, due to the activity of the constraint filter on
licensing constraints, the constraint in (74) is defined only for the marked member
of the category of Case (Oblique). It allows uneven trochees to occur only in the
marked Oblique case. In particular, it penalizes any inflected output containing
uneven trochees that is not an Oblique case form. As an illustration of the
Phonological and Morphological Structures involved in the evaluation of
LICENSE(HL, OBL.), consider the representations below for the Oblique of an ‘h’
stem:
(75) Figure 8 Morphological and Phonological Structure
a. Direct Case (NA) b. Oblique Case (Obl.)
PS PS
| |
Ft (H) Ft (HL)
|
σ σ σ
(lúft) (lúf.tu)
Root (NA) Root Obl..
|
MS(NA) MS(Obl.)
The inflected output in (75b.) satisfies the licensing constraint, since the
presence of an uneven (HL) trochee in its Phonological Structure entails the
156
presence of the ‘oblique’ case feature in the Morphological Structure of the output.
In terms of the constraint hierarchy, the fact that the uneven trochee is banned in
the Direct Case (Nominative) is indicative of the domination of MAX-IO by
LICENSE(HL,OBL.):
(76) Table 18 LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO (HL prohibited in the Nominative)
/luft-u
N
/ LICENSE (HL, OBL.) MAX-IO
a. " [(lúft)]
N
*
b. [(lúf.tu)]
N
*!
This time the fully faithful candidate (76b.) loses, due to the fact that it
contains an occurrence of an unbalanced (HL) trochee and is indexed for the
morpho-syntactic feature ‘nominative’. Thus it violates the higher-ranking
licensing constraint and is rendered sub-optimal, in spite of satisfying MAX-IO.
The winner (76a.) fares well on the licensing constraint and thus emerges as the
actual output in spite of its segmental unfaithfulness (violation of MAX-IO).
Putting together hierarchies (72) and (76) we obtain the constraint
hierarchy in (77), which represents an instantiation of the Marked in the Marked
(MIM) Schema introduced in Chapter 3 §5:
(77) LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL)
157
The ranking in (77) is a positional markedness schema (comparable to
M
α
» FAITH » M discussed in Chapter 3). The constraint hierarchy is illustrated in
Tableau (78) below for an ‘h’ stem form like luftu (‘air’) in the Nominative:
(78) Table 19 LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Nominative)
/luft-u
N
/ LICENSE (HL, OBL.) MAX-IO *(HL)
a. " [(lúft)]
N
*
b. [(lúf.tu)]
N
*! *
In the Oblique, the activity of the MIM schema is illustrated in (79):
(79) Table 20 LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Oblique)
/luft-u
O
/ LICENSE (HL, OBL.) MAX-IO *(HL)
a. [(lúft)]
O
*!
b. " [(lúf.tu)]
O
*
Having discussed the behavior of ‘h’ stems in the Nominative and Oblique,
the properties of ‘light’ stems can be shown to carry through under the same
schema. Consider, for illustration, a light-stem word like heru (‘sword’), in which
the case affix surfaces both in the Nominative and the Oblique.
The application of the MIM Schema in the Nominative case is shown in
(80):
158
(80) Table 21 LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *HL (Nominative)
/her-u
N
/ LICENSE (HL, OBL.) MAX-IO *(HL)
a. " [(hé.ru)]
N
b. [(hér)]
N
*!
In (80) the licensing constraint is vacuously satisfied by both candidates.
The winner is the fully faithful candidate (80a.) that wins over the output with
HVD (80b.) due to a violation of MAX-IO incurred by the deletion candidate
(80b.).
The remaining case is a ‘light’ stem in the Oblique, as in (81):
(81) Table 22 LICENSE (HL, OBL.) » MAX-IO » *(HL) (Oblique)
/her-u
O
/ LICENSE (HL, OBL.) MAX-IO *(HL)
a. " [(hé.ru)]
O
b. [(hér)]
O
*!
The situation illustrated in (81) is similar to a large extent to that in (79).
The only difference is the potential applicability of LICENSE (HL, OBL.) to forms
carrying morpho-syntactic case features. This time, both candidates considered are
specified as ‘oblique’ and the licensing constraint is satisfied by both (81a.) and
(81b.). The failure of the suboptimal candidate (81b.) is due to a fatal violation of
MAX-IO, a situation that closely parallels the one in (79) above.
In sum, the phonological behavior of case forms in Old Saxon can be
accounted for using the Marked in the Marked Schema instantiated for the
159
particular grammatical category and marked phonological structure, without
resorting to additional constraints.
4. Discussion
4.1 An apparent counterexample: uneven trochees in the unmarked category
An apparent counterexample to the claim that uneven trochees are licensed in the
grammatically marked category is provided by Galician (Kikuchi 2005). As
Kikuchi notes, Galician Plural nouns contain exclusively even (LL or H) trochees,
but the Singular allows for an uneven type of trochee (LH).
For example, according to Kikuchi, in Galician we find uneven trochees in
Singular forms such as (ú.til) (‘useful’) or ‘di(fí. il) (‘difficult’). The uneven
trochee never occurs in the Plural, where the allomorph of the number affix is
selected so as to avoid uneven trochees, as in a.( újs), not *a(.ú.les) (‘blue’,
singular form: aúl).
If true, the observation on the metrical properties of Galician Number
forms would be tantamount to saying that a grammatically unmarked category
(Singular) allows for marked metrical structure that does not occur in the marked
category (Plural).
However, Kikuchi’s analysis crucially hinges on the assumption that
Galician stress, which is trochaic, is unequivocally weight-sensitive and that
CVC(C) syllables are bimoraic. This assumption is not necessarily true. Without
attempting an analysis of the Galician data, a few remarks are appropriate that
160
question the empirical adequacy of the analysis. Against a moraic trochee account
we can mention the fact that in Galician there is a general word minimality
requirement according to which words should consist of at least two syllables, not
two morae. Also, there is no contrastive vowel length in Galician and CVC
syllables can act as ‘heavy’ or ‘light’ without a systematic correlation between the
type of coda and moraic affiliation. These remarks suggest that the stress system of
Galician may be, at least in part, weight-insensitive (syllabic trochees), so the
Plural forms do not necessarily contain (marked) uneven trochees.
Also, even if Galician Singular nominals contained uneven trochees that
were prohibited in the Plural, this would not constitute a counterexample to the
MIM generalization, since the Singular and Plural inflections in Galician are not
phonologically similar. Indeed, the Singular has a null marker, and the Plural is
underlyingly /s/ (although allomorphs are available).
Having provided and analysis of the Old Saxon data and having discussed
a potential counterexample to the MIM generalization, let us consider two
alternative accounts of the phenomena.
4.2 Alternative accounts
4.2.1 MIM with licensing constraints for individual case values
The analysis provided for Old Saxon in terms of MIM rests on the assumption that
cases pattern such that the Nominative and the Accusative on the one hand and the
Dative and Instrumental on the other hand can be lumped together into ‘Direct’
161
and ‘Oblique’, respectively. This grouping is motivated by the commonalities
between the case values in question (see the arguments brought in Chapter 3 §4 for
the groupings in question). These commonalities allowed us to define a unique
licensing constraint LICENSE (HL, OBLIQUE) covering the Oblique (Dative and
Instrumental) cases. Also, this made possible the implicit assumption according to
which a hypothetical licensing constraint LICENSE (HL, DIRECT), which licenses
uneven trochees in the Nominative and Accusative (Direct cases) does not play an
active part in Old Saxon and is possibly not even part of CON. This assumed
behavior is also an implicit statement on the nature of the filter on licensing
constraints discussed in Chapter 3 §4. With these stipulations, the account I
offered for Old Saxon case was successful, as shown by the analysis in §3.
However, Old Saxon is a Case system with at least four values:
Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Instrumental
72
. On the grammatical
markedness hierarchy, these values are arranged in the decreasing order of their
markedness as shown in (82) below, following Greenberg (1966a), Croft (1990)
and Hawkins (2003):
(82) Nominative (N) < Accusative (A) < Dative (D) < Other (including
Instrumental (I))
72
The Genitive has been deliberately left out of the picture because the phonological expression of
its marker is not similar to the one of the other four Case values.
162
This raises the problem of how many licensing constraints we can define
for a given marked phonological structure M (in the particular case of Old Saxon,
M is the uneven trochee). If we consider individual Case values, with no
assumption as to their grouping, we can in principle distinguish as many as four
licensing constraints: LICENSE (M,N), LICENSE (M,A), LICENSE (M,D) and
LICENSE (M,I). Given the way licensing constraints were conceived of in Chapter
3, M is licensed in a marked member of the grammatical category, so we can
assume that the constraint for the least marked member of the Case category
(Nominative, LICENSE (M,N)) is filtered out from CON. We are then left with three
licensing constraints (for A, D and I).
We can now assume that the licensing constraint for the next least marked
member, the Accusative, is also excluded from CON. This assumption is made for
the sake of the argument, but it may also be supported by further empirical
evidence. For example, having a three-way licensing constraint set for licensing of
M in Case makes the prediction that there may be languages where M is allowed in
the Accusative, but not in the Dative and/or Instrumental. At this point there is no
data to illustrate such a system, but it may well be the case that it does not exist.
We are left with a scenario in which we have individual licensing
constraints for the Dative and Instrumental, the most marked values of Case. In
what follows I will show that this scenario does not work for Old Saxon. The
illustration will be done on the class ‘h’ stem nominals (luft, ‘air’).
163
Given the fact that uneven (HL) trochees are not allowed in the Nominative
and Accusative, the two individual licensing constraints LICENSE (M,D) and
LICENSE (M,I) have to be dominate MAX-IO in the constraint hierarchy. This
prevents the realization of the high vowel affix in the Nominative and Accusative
(which would lead to an uneven trochee) and makes possible its retention in the
Dative and Oblique:
(83) LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M
The MIM Schema in (83) accounts for the behavior of the Nominative and
Accusative:
(84) Table 23 LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M
/luft-u
N/A
/ LICENSE (M,D) LICENSE (M,I) MAX-IO *M
a. " [(lúft)]
N/A
*
b. [(lúf.tu)]
N/A
*(!) *(!) *
As expected, the fully faithful candidate (84b.) loses to the winner (84a.)
because it violates both licensing constraints.
However, the schema no longer works for the Dative (85) or Instrumental
(86), where the intended winners are indicated by the frowny face symbol:
164
(85) Table 24 LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M (Dative)
/luft-u
D
/ LICENSE (M,D) LICENSE (M,I) MAX-IO *M
a. " [(lúft)]
D
*
b. / [(lúf.tu)]
D
*! *
(86) Table 25 LICENSE (M,D), LICENSE (M,I) » MAX-IO » *M (Instrumental)
/luft-u
I
/ LICENSE (M,D) LICENSE (M,I) MAX-IO *M
a. " [(lúft)]
I
*
b. / [(lúf.tu)]
I
*! *
The failure of the actual outputs (85b.) and (86b.) above is due to the fact
that both of them violate one of the top-ranked individual licensing constraints,
although satisfying MAX-IO. The analysis cannot be rescued by re-ranking, for
instance, LICENSE (M,D) under MAX-IO, because in such a situation a null
marking output (lúft) would be predicted in the Dative. Also, allowing the filter to
eliminate the licensing constraint for the next most marked Case value (LICENSE
(M,D)) would have the same undesirable effect.
Grouping together the Dative and Instrumental as ‘Oblique’ does yield the
right empirical result, as seen in §3. In conclusion, grouping together categories on
the grammatical markedness hierarchy is not only motivated by the commonalities
between them, but also necessary for the success of the analysis. This gives us an
insight into the way the constraint filter operates in that it is not only the case that
constraints for unmarked categories are eliminated, but also constraints for marked
categories, in principle allowed in CON, have to be at least sometimes ‘lumped
165
together’ into a single licensing constraint. The analysis along these lines offered
for Old Saxon is thus not only possible, but also necessary.
4.2.2 Positional Faithfulness
Finally, let us consider an alternative to the licensing analysis, along the lines of
positional faithfulness (Alderete 1995/2001, Jun 1995, Steriade 1995b, Beckman
1997, 1998/1999, Casali 1997, to mention only a few). The key observation that
could lead to this kind of approach is that the Old Saxon Oblique represents a
faithful segmental parse of the input, irrespective of stem type (‘l’ or ‘h’). Recall
that the Nominative-Accusative of ‘h’ stem deletes the case marker -u in
avoidance of uneven trochees, as shown in (65), repeated for convenience in (87):
(87) Table 26 Case marking in u-stem nouns (Singular)
Nominative-Accusative Dative-Instrumental Gloss
a. (lúft) /luft-u/ *luftu
(H) *(HL)
(lúf.tu) /luft-u
O.
/
(HL)
‘air’
(bó g) /bo g-u
NA
/ *bo gu
(H) *(HL)
(bó.gu) /bo g-u
O.
/
(HL)
‘bow’
b. (sú.nu) /sun-u
NA
/
(LL)
(sú.nu) /sun-u
O
/
(LL)
‘son’
(hé.ru) /her-u
NA
/
(LL)
(hé.ru) /her-u
O
/
(LL)
‘sword’
Given this situation, it may seem legitimate to relativize faithfulness, in
particular MAX-IO, to grammatical categories. What we need is the faithfulness
constraint indexed for the Oblique case:
‘h’
‘l’
166
(88) MAX-IO
O
‘Input segments belonging to forms inflected for the
Oblique case have output correspondents.’
Indexed for the Oblique, MAX-IO is never violated at least as regards the
Case affix -u. It could conceivably replace top-ranked LICENSE(HL, OBL.) and
apparently leads to the desired result, without recourse being made to positive
licensing. Nevertheless, this option turns out to be less felicitous than the licensing
approach due to the fact that there is more than one way to satisfy MAX-IO.
Other ingredients in the alternative analysis are markedness constraints that
interact conflict with MAX-IO, notably *(HL) (already introduced in §3) and
*PK/hi. *PK/hi militates against high vowel syllable peaks. It is a member of the
*PK/x constraint family (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)
73
:
(89) *PK/hi ‘No high vowel syllable peaks.’
The fact that in general faithfulness is sacrificed to foot form (as attested in
the Nominative-Accusative) indicates that *(HL) dominates MAX-IO:
73
*PK/hi will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 in relation to the realization on Number
suffixes in Romanian nominals.
167
(90) Table 27 *(HL) » MAX-IO (Nominative deletion)
/luft-u
NA
/ *(HL) MAX-IO
a. " [(lúft)]
NA
*
b. [(lúf.tu)]
NA
*!
The retention of the high vowel in stems indicates that MAX-IO (or, at
least, a version of that which is relativized as to stem-affix membership such as
MAX-IO
Stem
) dominates *PK/hi.
The constraint ranking that has emerged so far (*(HL) » MAX-IO» *PK/hi)
cannot account for all the data, as apparently undominated trochee form *(HL) is
in fact violated in ‘heavy’ stem Obliques. The need for relativized faithfulness
becomes obvious; moreover, MAX-IO in the Oblique case (MAX-IO
O
) has to
dominate *(HL). The constraint ranking is therefore the one in (91):
(91) MAX-IO
O
» (*HL) » MAX-IO » *PK/hi
Hierarchy (91) is an instance of Positional Faithfulness
74
analysis applied
to Old Saxon. As Zoll (1998) notes, the principle problem with this kind of
approach is that it is unable to account for derived marked structure, like marked
foot form. Even if this point can be circumvented by regarding foot form as a bi-
product of faithful preservation of underlying material in the Oblique, MAX-IO
O
is
satisfied not only when the case marker is realized as [-u], but also, among other
74
See Chapter 3 §2.1.
168
things, when the segment is apparently ‘deleted’ and co-indexed with the final
consonant of the stem:
(92) Table 28 MAX-IO
O
» *(HL) » MAX-IO » *PK/hi
/luft
1
-u
2O
/ MAX-IO
O
*(HL) MAX-IO *PK/hi
a. / [(lúf.t
1
u
2
)]
O
*! * segmentally faithful
b. " [(lúft
1,2
)]
O
coalescence
c. [(lúft
1
Ø
2
)]
O
*! * deletion
In (92), both the intended winner (92a.) and the coalescence candidate
(92b.) fare well on Max-IO
O
, but the actual output incurs a fatal violation of *(HL)
and loses to (92b.), which satisfies all relevant constraints
75
. The only candidate
that is ruled out by MAX-IO
O
is the deletion candidate (92c.).
Needless to say, there are many more hypothetical outputs that satisfy
MAX-IO
O
in various ways, through labialization of the final consonant of the stem,
glide formation etc. To prevent all these candidates from winning one has to resort
to a more complex constraint machinery. The licensing of marked metrical
structure in the marked grammatical category position suggests itself as a more
economical approach, which has at the same time the advantage of capturing the
observed phenomena in a direct fashion by positive licensing.
Finally, it should be noted that Old Saxon represents a relatively simple
case, where the implementation of Positional Faithfulness is possible, although it
is less economical than the MIM schema. As we shall see, there are more complex
75
It should be acknowledged, however, that candidate (92b.) violates the anti-coalescence
constraint UNIFORMITY-IO.
169
cases, like the one of Mayak intervocalic lenition (Chapter 6), where Positional
Faithfulness cannot be employed. This highlights the advantages of the MIM
account advocated in this dissertation.
5. Summary
To summarize, in this chapter I have described and analyzed marked metrical
structure as it emerges in the case system of Old Saxon in relation to grammatical
markedness. Specifically, uneven trochees are allowed to occur in the
grammatically marked Dative-Instrumental (Oblique), but are disallowed in the
unmarked Nominative-Accusative, although the respective case markers are
underlying the same.
The behavior of Case in Old Saxon is particularly interesting because it
represents an application of the MIM Schema for a grammatical category (Case)
with more than two values. I have shown that grouping Case members into two
empirically motivated classes (‘Direct’ and ‘Oblique’) leads to an adequate
analysis. More research is necessary on the behavior of n-way categories, which
can offer insights into the nature of the constraint filter on licensing discussed in
Chapter 3.
The Old Saxon phenomena represent a relatively simple application of the
Marked in the Marked Schema, which presents itself as an economical,
straightforward alternative to Positional Faithfulness, at least as far as marked
structure that is not underlying is concerned. In the following two chapters two
170
other instances of marked phonological structure in grammatically marked
categories will be investigated, namely segmental and phonotactic markedness.
171
CHAPTER 5
SEGMENTAL MARKEDNESS IN ROMANIAN
0. Introduction
Romanian nominal morphology can be used to illustrate the claim according to
which a category that is more marked morphologically (Plural) allows for marked
phonological material (consonants with secondary articulation) to an extent that is
equal or greater than in the less marked category (Singular). The Romanian case
illustrates the activity of the Marked in the Marked principle at the segmental level
(segmental markedness).
Romanian nouns and adjectives display a relatively rich inflectional system
in expressing the grammatical category of number. Unlike other Romance
languages, Romanian distinguishes three grammatical genders (masculine,
feminine, neuter), where neuters pattern with masculines in the singular and with
feminines in the plural.
In most masculines and neuters, both the Singular and the Plural have
underlying high vowel morphemic exponents, whose distribution is subject to
similar restrictions in Standard Romanian. However, there is a phonological
asymmetry between Singulars and Plurals in that only Plurals allow for consonants
with secondary articulation, which occur as a result of number affixation, while
Singulars allow only for plain consonants and in fact often have a null realization
of the Number suffix:
172
(93) a. No secondary articulation in the Singular
/lup-u
Sg.
/ → [lup-Ø]
Sg
‘wolf’ *[lupu]
Sg.
, *[lup
w
]
Sg.
b. Secondary articulation in the Plural
/lup-i
Pl.
/ → [lup
j
]
Pl.
‘wolves’ *[lup-Ø]
Pl.
, *[lupi]
Pl.
The data in (93) show a general property of Romanian high vowel affixes,
namely the fact that high vowel syllable peaks are avoided, which results in
deletion of the Singular morpheme, but in palatalization of the stem-final
consonant in the Plural. In contrast, non-high vowel affixes are faithfully realized:
(94) a. Deletion of Singular high vowel affix
/lup-u
Sg.
/ → [lup-Ø]
Sg.
‘wolf’ *[lupu]
Sg.
, *[lup
w
]
Sg.
b. Preservation of Singular non-high vowel affix
/frat-e
Sg.
/ → [frate]
Sg.
‘brother’ *[frat-Ø]
Sg.
As we shall see, the Romanian data are in fact even more complex and
considerations of syllable well-formedness come into play in the realization of
forms inflected for number. For example, whenever Number inflection would lead
to a coda cluster rising in sonority (like a stop-sonorant sequence), the Number
affix is retained in outputs as a vocalic segment, even if this creates high vowel
syllable peaks:
173
(95) a. Singular affix retained
/akr-u
Sg.
/ → [akru]
Sg.
‘sour-Sg.’ *[akr-Ø]
Sg.,
*[akr
w
]
Sg.
b. Plural affix retained
/akr-i
Pl.
/ → [akri]
Pl.
‘sour-Pl.’ *[akr-Ø]
Pl.
, *[akr
j
]
Pl.
The asymmetries noted above between Singular and Plural forms cannot be
explained in purely phonological terms, and morphology has to be taken into
account. Specifically, I show that Marked in the Marked Schema can be used to
account for the differential behavior of number forms in Romanian. Licensing of
marked phonological structure (consonants with secondary articulation) in the
grammatically marked Plural number will be shown to play an important role in
shaping inflected forms, but in the spirit of Optimality Theory outputs will emerge
from constraint interaction. This explains why we do not always see consonants
with secondary articulation in the Plural, but also why we never see this kind of
marked structure in the Singular, at least in Standard Romanian.
§1 of the chapter presents Number expression in Romanian nominal
morphology and argues for the underlying presence of the theme vowel /u/ as the
exponent of the Singular in masculines and neuters. The Singular - Plural
asymmetry in Number marking is discussed and the MIM schema is applied to
account for it. In §2 I extend the applicability of the MIM analysis to other dialects
of Romanian and in §3 extensions to Romance are examined. §4 examines an
alternative approach (Morpheme Realization). It is shown that the MIM schema is
174
simpler and empirically more adequate in capturing the typology of Number
marking. §5 formulates the conclusions of the chapter.
1. Number expression in Romanian nominal morphology
Romanian nouns and adjectives have long been claimed to be vowel-final in their
underlying representation (Augerot 1974, Steriade 1984, Chitoran 1996, 2002),
although only feminines and some of the masculines display the final vowel in
surface form. Along the same lines, previous researchers have assumed that all
Romanian nominals have the underlying representation /[stem]-vocalic ending /
(Chitoran 1996, 2002).
However, most of the arguments put forth for this representation rely on
diachrony and dwell upon the fact that the assumed vocalic ending represents a
remnant of the nominal theme vowel in the mother language, Latin. Such an
argument is hard to defend from the perspective of acquisition, as speakers cannot
be assumed to have access to diachronic data. From the perspective of Optimality
Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), the presence or absence of the vocalic
ending in nominal outputs can be shown to be the result of constraint interaction,
under which assumption no recourse is necessary to the history of the language
proper. Moreover, there are patterns in the data that point to the recoverability of
vocalic suffixes or endings.
175
1.1 Data
In agreement with Chitoran (1996, 2002) I argue that all Romanian nominals have
the underlying representation mentioned above and repeated in (96):
(96) /[stem]-vocalic ending /
Vocalic endings (also known as thematic vowels) vary according to
inflectional class and function in contemporary Romanian as the exponent of the
category of number (Singular in the citation form), so in the remainder of the
chapter the terms ‘thematic vowel’ and ‘singular affix’ will be used
interchangeably.
Romanian has a three-way gender system that distinguishes between
masculines, feminines and neuters. In the citation form of feminines, thematic
vowels are always realized. As for the masculines/ neuters, the picture is less
straightforward, since a sizable number of outputs end in a consonant. In (97)
below I summarize the Romanian nominal endings. The data are taken from
Standard Romanian, the major dialect of the language, spoken north of the
Danube. The proposal, which I share with Augerot (1974), Steriade (1984) and
Chitoran (1996, 2002), among others, is that all masculines and neuters which end
in a consonant or a glide at the output level (and thus have no overt morphological
marking) have the underlying thematic vowel /u/
76
.
76
The vocalic ending -u is in actuality the exponent of the Singular in masculines and neuters.
176
(97) Romanian nominal endings (base form, singular indefinite)
a. Feminines
- : ká.s- ‘house’
só.r- ‘sister’
lí.te.r- ‘letter’
-e: kár.t-e ‘book’
vúl.p-e ‘fox’
b. Masculines and neuters
-e: frá.t-e ‘brother’
mún.t-e ‘mountain’
-u
• not realized word-finally, after a single consonant or a licit coda:
lúp-Ø ‘wolf’
ópt-Ø ‘eight’
mórt-Ø ‘dead’
• realized as [u]
al.bás.tr-u ‘blue-masculine’
kú.pl-u ‘couple’
• realized as [w]
ka.ró-w ‘square’
177
The interesting case is represented by the masculines and neuters that are
assumed to be underlying u-final. As shown in (97) above, sometimes the
underlying vowel is faithfully realized in outputs as [u], sometimes as the glide [w]
and sometimes deleted altogether. In what follows, I will add more flesh to the
issue of the underlying theme vowel affix /u/ in masculines and neuters and show
that this segment is indeed part of the phonological input and has morphological
affiliation, even though one may suspect that it is epenthetic.
1.2 Evidence for underlying /u/ in masculines and neuters
1.2.1 Lexicon optimization
With respect to the thematic vowel /u/ as underlying, although this status has been
long assumed in Romanian generative phonology, no substantial arguments have
been adduced for its presence in the input as a reflex of synchronic morphology.
Chitoran (2002) merely notes that /u/ surfaces as [u] in the singular definite form
of masculines/ neuters or as [w] at the end of certain loanwords, most of which are
borrowed from French, and concludes that “there is no independent evidence from
the phonology of the language where [u] is an epenthetic vowel, or some kind of
preferred default vowel” (Chitoran 2002:39).
Assuming the standard two-level system of representation of Optimality
Theory, the success of the analysis essentially depends on the choice of
representations, especially for underlying representations, which are not directly
accessible and have to be deduced. Given the OT principle of Richness of the Base
178
(Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), there are no restrictions on the inputs to the
constraint hierarchy for a language.
On the other hand, in terms of learnability, there should be a way for
speakers to infer the actual input that serves as the underlying form for a given
output. It has been proposed that this is accomplished by Lexicon Optimization
(Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004; Itô, Mester and Padgett 1995), whereby
learners, in the absence of other evidence, infer the input as being identical with
the actual output.
In Romanian vowel-final nominals then, the underlying form will be
chosen as identical with the phonetic realization, which includes the theme vowel.
In consonant-final forms, the inference process is presumably more complex and
involves evaluation of related, morphologically derived outputs, such as the forms
where the high vowel [u] surfaces between the root and suffixed or clitic material,
such as the definite article -l
77
or possessive affixes, as will be exemplified in the
following subsection below. It can be hypothesized that as elements occupying
argument positions in the syntax, definite nominal phrases (DPs) have a high
frequency of occurrence, potentially higher than that of bare, indefinite nominals,
so there is a consistent exposure of the speakers to forms in which /u/ surfaces
faithfully
78
. Although this algorithm looks reasonable, it should be supplemented
by a more comprehensive argumentation for final /u/, in the absence of which one
77
See also work by Inkelas (1994) on lexicon optimization in cases of alternation.
78
Cross-linguistically, definites are more marked grammatically than indefinites. The relatively
higher frequency of occurrence of definites that we see in certain languages may instantiate a
‘markedness reversal’ phenomenon that arises for pragmatic and syntactic reasons (arguments tend
to be definite, reflecting the informational structure of language).
179
might have to consider the alternative of epenthetic [u], which would lead to a
different analysis.
1.2.2 Morphological exponence in nominal inflection
What draws attention in the first place to the possible existence of an underlying
vocalic ending /u/ in nominals that end superficially in a single consonant (like lup
(‘wolf’)) or in a licit consonant cluster (like opt (‘eight’)) is the fact that in the
Singular Definite form they systematically display the vowel [u] intervening
between the root and the definite article -l, pronominal clitics or any suffixed
inflectional material that begins with a consonant:
(98) Table 29 The vocalic ending [u] surfacing before consonantal suffixes
lúp ‘wolf’ [lú.p]
Stem
-u
Sg.
-l
Def.
‘the wolf’
glás ‘voice [glá.s]
Stem
-u
Sg.
-l
Def.
‘the voice’
[glá.s]
Stem
-u
Sg.
-m
j
Clit.
‘my voice’
In (98) above, [u] represents the morphological exponent of the Singular
number. To understand the notion of morphological exponence, consider two
facets of an output, Phonological Structure (PS) and Morphological Structure
(MS)
79
.
79
See Walker (2000) and Walker and Feng (2004) for the correspondence relation between PS and
MS.
180
The ontological status of Morphological Structure (MS) as a legitimate
level of representation is acknowledged by Halle and Marantz (1993) in their
seminal work on Distributed Morphology (DM). Starting from the basic
organization of the grammar originally proposed by the Principles-and-Parameters
model (Chomsky 1981), Halle and Marantz introduce (1993) MS as an
independent level that is “a syntactic representation that nevertheless serves as part
of the phonology” (Halle and Marantz 1993:114):
(99) Figure 9 Morphological Structure as a level of representation
DS (D-Structure)
SS (S-Structure) ← Spellout
(Logical Form) LF MS (Morphological Structure)
PF (Phonological Form)
The task of MS is to serve as the interface between Syntax and Phonology.
This process can be described as follows. The syntax deals in bundles of syntactic
features, not phonological features. At MS, the feature bundles are matched up
with morphemes from the Vocabulary (i.e. the list of lexical items); at this point, a
phonological string is assigned to each feature bundle (if possible). Then PF
performs phonological operations on the morphemes. What MS does is to impose
a linear order among words and their constituents, given the fact that the Syntax
only indicates hierarchical relations. Also, morphemes indicate whether they are
181
prefixes or suffixes and MS respects those indications. Finally, additional
morphemes (agreement) may be added to meet certain well-formedness
conditions.
To see how morphological exponence is assigned in Romanian outputs
inflected for Number, let us return to the data in (97). If we consider the two facets
of an output, Phonological Structure (PS) and Morphological Structure (MS), the
segment [u
Sg.
] in PS corresponds to the Number head in MS, that carries the
‘Singular’ specification, and the segment [l
Def.
] in PS corresponds to the
Determiner head specified as ‘definite’. (100) shows the assignment of
morphological exponence for the Singular masculine noun lupul (‘wolf-definite’):
(100) Figure 10 Assigning morphological exponence
DP
2
D’
2
D
0
NumP
2 2
M-Structure Num
0
k
D
0
Num’
2 g 2
N
0
Num
0
(l) Num
0
k
NP
g g g
(lup
i
) (u) N’
g
N
0
g
t
i
P-Structure lup-u
Sg.
-l
Def.
‘wolf, Singular, Definite’
182
The segment [u
Sg.
] in the PS representation in (100) stands in a
correspondence relation with the Number node in MS. Also, morpho-syntactic
features like ‘singular’ or ‘definite’, originally present in MS as properties of the
respective heads, can be said to percolate to structures that dominate them and
ultimately to the word level
80
. It is in this sense that the output word ‘carries’ or ‘is
inflected for’ the morpho-syntactic features in question.
If we uphold the principle of Consistency of Exponence (Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004), epenthetic segments are not expected to have a
morphological affiliation, but we can see that [u
Sg.
] does have one (Singular). This
is, of course, an argument based on phonological and morphological
representations, and will be corroborated by evidence coming from the
phonotactics of Romanian in §1.2.3.
1.2.3 Phonotactic evidence for underlying /u/
From a phonotactic perspective, the vowel [u] that intervenes between the stem
and the Definite or Possessive affixes in (98) apparently does the work of breaking
a consonant cluster which is illicit in Romanian, like a syllable coda of the type
Cl]
σ
. Although complex codas are allowed in Romanian, there is a sonority
sequencing principle that is never violated, namely that complex codas with
increasing sonority are banned. This indicates that at least in codas the Sonority
Sequencing Principle is obeyed (for earlier work on sonority sequencing see,
80
For the notion of ‘percolation’ in morpho-syntax, see the seminal work of Lieber (1980) and
Williams (1981).
183
among others, Sievers 1876, Vogel 1977, Kiparsky 1979, Selkirk 1984, Clements
1990). Benua (1997/2000) formulates a constraint dubbed SON-CON, which bans
complex codas rising in sonority (101). In Romanian SON-CON is undominated.
(101) SONCON ‘No codas rising in sonority.’
In the citation form, [u] can be found in nominals whose stem ends in
voiceless consonant followed by a liquid (traditionally labeled muta cum liquida),
a sequence disallowed in codas by virtue of SON-CON, as in al.bás.tr-u/ *al.bástr
(‘blue’), kú.pl-u/ *kúpl (‘couple’) á.kr-u/ *ákr (‘sour’) etc.
81
.
In Romanian SONCON is thus strictly enforced, and no rising sonority
profiles are tolerated in codas. Although syllables of type C(C)V(C)C and CC(C)
consonant clusters in general are licit in Romanian, vowel epenthesis is attested,
albeit sporadically, to break consonant onset/ coda clusters, presumably for ease of
articulation and/ or to maximize perception of otherwise unreleased stops. This
kind of epenthesis occurs in casual speech or in the speech of uneducated speakers
when they utter neologisms or borrowings which contain consonant clusters that
are hard to articulate or perceive:
81
Forms ending in a voiceless fricative - nasal cluster are attested (as in basm, ‘fairy tale’), but in
such cases the nasal is devoiced to [m ], and the sonority of the voiceless nasal may be on a par with
[s] (Vasiliu 1965).
184
(102) a. ad-i-ministrator for ad.mi.ni.stra.tor ‘administrator’
sil-i-vestru for sil.ves.tru ‘Sylvester’
h-i-lizi for hli.zi ‘giggle’
b. -i-ko al for koa.l ‘school’
opt-i-sprezet e for opt.spre.ze.t e ‘eighteen’
un-i-k for un.k ‘young cow’
os-i-t or for os.t or ‘small bone’
If in the case of (102a.) one can detect the flavor of copy epenthesis (Kitto
and de Lacy 1999), given the fact that the words contain other instances of the
vowel [i], no such explanation is available for the rest of the forms (102b.). For
those words, where all the vowels of the base form are different from [i], copy
epenthesis cannot be invoked and the situation is typical of default epenthesis.
It seems therefore that Romanian has at least one unquestionably
epenthetic vowel, so the question boils down to whether [u] in (98) can be a
second epenthetic vowel in this language. At first blush, [u] appears to qualify as
epenthetic, as there seems to be a fairly clear-cut division of labor between [i] and
[u]: both of them serve the purpose of syllable well-formedness, and it could be
hypothesized that [u] is inserted at morpheme boundary, separating the stem from
inflectional material or clitics, whereas [i] is a kind of elsewhere case. It has been
shown that in languages with two or more epenthetic segments, those segments
185
often occur in complementary distribution, in other words, they should not share
one and the same context. For example, in Japanese (Nasu 2003), the epenthetic
vowel is [u] as a rule, but [o] after coronal stops. It appears, however, that there is
no way to predict the quality of the epenthetic vowel in Romanian ([i] or [u])
depending on the context of insertion.
Consider by way of example the compound numeral optsprezet e
(‘eighteen’, literally ‘eight-to-ten’), which is often pronounced [opt-i-sprezet e],
with epenthetic [i], as illustrated in (102b.) above. This is nevertheless not the end
of the story, since in casual speech a good deal of the speakers utter it as [opt-u-
sprezet e]. A similar case can be made for the noun untdelemn
82
(‘vegetable oil’,
literally ‘butter-of-wood’), formerly a compound, for which the pronunciation unt-
u-delemn is attested. Under these circumstances, the epenthetic status of [u]
appears to be at least questionable, since the vowel shares the context of
occurrence with the truly epenthetic [i]. I suggest that in such a case speakers
adopt an alternative strategy of avoiding a complex consonant cluster and
pronounce the underlying thematic vowel /u/ in opt(u) (‘eight’). Likewise, I claim
that this is what they do when they apparently ‘insert’ [u] in the outputs in (98).
Also, [u] in place of [i] is not an available option in (102) where there is not a
corresponding form with thematic -u.
It is known that epenthesis takes place at the expense of increasing
phonological unfaithfulness, so if /u/ is available from the input there seems to be
82
The morpheme structure of untdelemn is unt+de+lemn.
186
no good reason to assume insertion. If /u/ were epenthetic, its occurrence in
exactly the same context where a thematic vowel would occur would be
accidental, missing an obvious parallel. In fact, Romanian does not seem to favor
vowel epenthesis as a means of simplifying consonant clusters (the [i] epenthesis
in (102), although documented, is infrequent and unsystematic). Instead, the
preferred solution is consonant deletion at the expense of MAX-C, as attested in the
following substandard pronunciations:
(103) pormonew for portmonew ‘wallet’
eskursije for ekskursije ‘excursion’
istitut for institut ‘institute’
ba okur for bat okur ‘mockery’
Having discussed evidence for underlying /u/ provided by Romanian
phonotactics, let us turn to evidence that comes from the treatment of loanwords.
1.2.4 Evidence from loanwords
Another argument against epenthesis comes from the treatment of French
loanwords. French borrowings originally ending in a stressed vowel like [é], [ó],
[í], end in V + [w] in Romanian. Under the assumption that there are no phonemic
glides in Romanian (see also Steriade 1984 and Chitoran 2002 on vowel/ glide
alternations in Romanian), final [w] is the realization of underlying /u/. Let us,
187
however, suppose for the moment that [w] is the realization of epenthetic /u/,
possibly modulo some phonological opacity, and that insertion is necessary for
reasons of metrical structure
83
. The behavior of French loans is illustrated in Table
(104) below:
(104) Table 30 The realization of French loanwords in the indefinite form
(with [u] as epenthetic)
French word Possible Romanian input Romanian output
[pa í] ‘wager’
/pari/ pa.rí-w
[ka ] ‘square’
/karo/ ka.ró-w
[lisé] ‘high school’
/lit e/ li.t é-w
Consider again the set of French loans originally ending in [í], [ó] and [é],
all of which are neuters in Romanian, this time in their definite form:
(105) Table 31 The definite form of French loans
French word Romanian output
(indefinite)
Romanian output
(definite)
[pa í] ‘wager’
parí-w parí-u-l *parí-l
[ka ] ‘square’
karó-w karó-u-l *karó-l
[lisé] ‘high school’
lit é-w lit é-u-l *lit é-l
The definites in (105) are hard to account for in terms of epenthesis, since
in the absence of [u] no ill-formedness would have arisen. In spite of that, definite
forms like *parí-l, *karó-l or *lit é-l (the starred forms in (105)) are not attested.
83
Note that final stressed vowels are severely restricted in Romanian.
188
In all these cases, the epenthesis of [u] seems unmotivated. A natural solution to
the problem is to assume that /u/ has become a part of the underlying form,
generalized by analogy with the rest of the members of the masculine-neuter class,
and that it surfaces as the glide [w] word-finally to form a stressed CVw syllable,
in avoidance of a vowel-final form with final stress
84
(the only nominals that end
in a stress vowel (á) are a limited class of feminines. Before the definite article [-l],
/u/ surfaces faithfully, to avoid the illicit coda wl]
σ
.
Also, [u] is present in cliticized forms even if its epenthesis does not seem
necessary, as in glas-u-j (‘his voice’). Without providing a systematic analysis of
Romanian glides here, it is worth noting that, if the possessive clitic [j] is
underlying /i/, there seems to be no good reason to epenthesize [u], thereby
increasing unfaithfulness to the input. The faithful realization [i] would suffice for
syllable well-formedness, but we do not get forms like *glas-i. In actuality, the
assumed sequence /ui/ gets realized as [uj], in accordance with the principles that
govern the status of Romanian vowel strings (see Chitoran 2002 for a detailed
analysis).
To summarize the discussion so far, it has been shown that Singular
masculines and neuters all have the underlying theme vowel /u/. Three kinds of
evidence have been brought to bear on the issue:
84
Hiatus is also disfavored in Romanian (see Chitoran 2002), which makes a form like *pa.rí.u
ungrammatical.
189
• lexicon optimization and morphological exponence
• phonotactic evidence
• the treatment of loanwords
I have shown that an analysis that assumes /u/ to be part of the underlying
form captures the facts better than an epenthesis account. To conclude this section,
Romanian nominals are all characterized by the presence of vocalic Singular
affixes. While in feminines the affixes are always seen at the surface and the affix
vowels are non-high, in masculines and neuters the Singular morpheme,
underlyingly /u/, is realized in outputs only when its absence would lead to an
illicit coda. The non-high affix /e/ is regularly retained. A question that requires an
answer is why, if [u] is underlying and represents the Singular suffix, it does not
always surface in the base form of the masculine-neuters, in other words, why is
/-u/ deleted in a form like /lup-u/ → [lup] (‘wolf, singular’)? In the following
section I take a step towards answering this question and introduce Romanian
Plural morphology, with a focus on masculines and neuters. In these two types of
nominals, both the Singular and the Plural affix are high vowels on which, as we
shall see, Standard Romanian imposes occurrence restrictions in final position.
1.3 Romanian Plural morphology
1.3.1 Restrictions on the distribution of high vowels in Romanian
A closer examination of Romanian nominals shows that [u] is not the only
(unstressed) vowel whose final occurrence is restricted word finally. The high,
190
central vowel [ ] is banned from this position altogether in Romanian words,
except in a relatively small class of verbs, in which this vowel serves as the
Infinitive marker and carries primary stress. For convenience, a vowel chart for
Romanian is provided below:
(106) Table 32 Romanian vowel chart
Front Central Back
High i
u
Mid e
o
Low a
The third member of the set of Romanian high vowels, /i/, is particularly
important to nominal inflectional morphology, as it represents the Plural affix for a
good deal of masculines and some feminines. It also occurs as the underlying
Plural marker of all masculine adjectives.
Unlike the singular morpheme /u/, which surfaces only when compelled by
the phonotactics of the language, the high vowel plural marker /i/ is always
realized in some way. It is realized as the full vowel [i] in words whose stem ends
in an unsyllabifiable consonant cluster, or as palatalization on the preceding
consonant [
j
] in words whose stem form ends in a single consonant or a licit
consonant cluster
85
:
85
The inflection of Romanian nominals also illustrates cases of more complex alternation, such as for example
the alternation s/ , as in pas - pa
j
(‘step - steps’). For simplicity of exposition, I do not discuss alternations of
this sort, as their existence does not crucially affect the analysis (see Chitoran 2002 for details on more
complex instances of palatalization).
191
(107) The realization of the plural marker /i/
pom-Ø
Sg.
‘fruit-tree’
. Pl
j
pom ‘fruit-trees’ UR /pom+i
Pl.
/
akr-u
Sg.
‘sour’ akr-i
Pl.
‘sour-plural’ UR /akr+i
Pl.
/
So far we have seen that monosegmental number affixes in Romanian
masculines and neuters are high vowels subject to similar distributional
restrictions. Nevertheless, as already mentioned, Plural markers always find an
expression in outputs, unlike Singular markers, which undergo full deletion when
they do not serve syllabification purposes. In the following section I develop an
optimality-theoretic analysis of these facts.
1.3.2 Analysis
1.3.2.1 The Sonority Hierarchy and the distribution of theme vowels
The Romanian data on nominal number morphology indicate that in this language
final high vowels are generally disallowed, and masculines and neuters undergo
high vowel apocope whenever possible. High vowel apocope is attested cross-
linguistically in Kagoshima Japanese, Balto-Finnic (Kenstowicz, 1994), Gilbertese
(Blevins 1997), Old English (Hogg, 2000) etc., under a wide variety of
conditioning factors
86
.
High vowels have been shown to be favorite targets for apocope (Howe
and Pulleyblank 2001), possibly due to their low place on the sonority scale. With
86
See also the behavior of Old Saxon high vowel affixes in Chapter 4.
192
respect to the dimension of sonority, given the Sonority Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984,
Clements 1988), segments that rank higher in the hierarchy make better syllable
peaks:
(108) Sonority Hierarchy
Low V > High V > Liquid > Nasal > Voiced Fric. > Voiceless Fric. >
> Voiced Stop >Voiceless Stop
The Sonority Hierarchy (108) can be expressed in terms of a hierarchy of
constraints of the form *PK/x that prohibit the segment x as a syllable nucleus
(peak). The lower the segment x is in the sonority hierarchy, the higher-ranked is
the associated constraint, as shown in (109) below, following Prince and
Smolensky (1993/2004):
(109) *PK/p,t,k » *PK/b,d,g » *PK/f,s » *PK/v,z » *PK/m,n » *PK/r,l » *PK/i,u,( ) »
»*PK/a,o,e,
I refer to *PK/i,u,( ) as *PK/[hi]. Notice that this constraint dominates
*PK/[non-hi] (*PK/a,o,e,). This accounts for the possibility that non-high vowels
may occur in contexts where high vowels do not, as the case is with the thematic
vowels /e/ and / /. I propose that the ranking in (109), in interaction with other
193
constraints active in the language, correctly predicts the distribution of Romanian
nominal theme vowels.
1.3.2.2 High vowel deletion in the Singular
Let us start by considering a simple case, deletion of the theme vowel /-u/ in
masculines or neuters with roots that end in a single consonant or a syllabifiable
consonant cluster like /mo +u
Sg.
/ → [mo -Ø]
Sg.
(‘old man’). As already shown,
the underlying phonological exponent of the Singular number, /-u
Sg.
/, does not
surface in this case. This constitutes a ranking argument for *PK/hi and MAX-IO,
defined below in (110) and (111):
(110) MAX-IO ‘Input segments have output correspondents.’
(111) *PK/[hi] ‘No high vowel syllable nuclei.’
87
I propose that /-u/ deletes under pressure of avoidance of syllable peaks
with less sonority than a non-high vowel, as exemplified in (112):
87
*PK/[hi] and MAX-IO were also employed in an alternative analysis of Old Saxon Case
morphology (Chapter 4).
194
(112) Table 33 *PK/[hi] » MAX-IO (general deletion of high vowels)
/mo +u
Sg.
/
*PK/[hi] MAX-IO
a. " mo -Ø
Sg.
*
b. mo -u
Sg.
*!
In Tableau (112), candidate (112a.) wins over the fully faithful candidate
(112b.) because it satisfies top-ranked *PK/[hi] and avoids a final high vowel
through deletion.
In nouns whose stem ends in a consonant cluster with rising sonority, like
akr-u
Sg.
(‘sour-masculine’), the singular affix surfaces as a last resort to rescue
syllable well-formedness. The survival of the high vowel Singular affix is ensured
by SONCON dominating *PK/[hi]:
(113) Table 34 SONCON » *PK/[hi] (high vowels retained avoiding illicit coda)
/akr+u
Sg.
/ SONCON *PK/[hi]
a. " [akr-u]
Sg.
*
b. [akr-Ø]
Sg.
*!
The success of the winning candidate (113a.) is ensured by satisfaction of
SONCON, a constraints that penalizes the deletion candidate (113b.) because it has
a coda rising in sonority. The fact that deletion of root segments does not occur
shows that MAX-ROOT-IO (McCarthy and Prince 1994, 1995) is undominated, so
outputs with root segment deletion like ak or ak
w
are ruled out. Undominated
MAX-ROOT-IO also prevents deletion of high vowels in roots.
195
So far, we have established the following constraint ranking:
(114) MAX-ROOT-IO » SONCON » *PK/[hi] » MAX-IO
The hierarchy in (114) captures the behavior of Singular masculines and
neuters. It expresses the fact that high vowel syllable peaks are prohibited via
deletion of the high vowel, except when deletion of that vowel would cause a
syllable coda with rising sonority. However, if we examine the behavior of Plural
inflected forms, we find that (114) is not enough for capturing the phenomena.
1.3.2.3 Secondary articulation in the Plural
Let us now turn to Plural forms. Here we note that while Singulars can display null
marking (bare roots), plurals are always phonologically affixed in some way,
either by the presence of a full vowel [i] suffix or by secondary articulation
(palatalization) of the final consonant of the stem.
The picture sketched above seems to indicate that within the category of
Number the Plural makes use of strategies that converge to realize the morpheme
in question. The situation is reminiscent of cases where phonological realization of
morphemes is enforced in outputs, so considering that to be the relevant constraint
might seem to be a legitimate move. In §1.3.2.7 we will see, however, that an
analysis in such terms fails to give a satisfactory account of the Romanian facts.
196
Consider first the plural of nominals whose root ends in licit coda clusters,
like /mo +i
Pl.
/ → [mo
j
]
Pl.
(‘old men’). The fact that palatalization occurs in the
actual output as the phonological expression of plurality indicates that MAX-IO
dominates the anti-coalescence constraint UNIFORMITY-IO (McCarthy and Prince
1995):
(115) UNIFORMITY-IO ‘No segment in the output has multiple correspondents
in the input’
(116) Table 35 MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO (coalescence in the Plural)
/mo +i
Pl.
/
MAX-IO UNIFORMITY-IO
a. " [mo
j
]
Pl.
*
b. [mo -Ø]
Pl.
*!
Candidate (116a.) is a multiple correspondence candidate that instantiates
the mapping /mo
1
+i
2
/ → [mo
j
1,2
] shown in more detail below:
(117) Multiple correspondence in Plural formation
/mo
1
+i
2(Pl.)
/
[/mo
j
1,2
]
Pl.
197
Coalescence in the winning candidate (116a.) represents a way of satisfying MAX-
IO, a constraint violated by the loser (116b.).
The hierarchies (114) and (116) can now be collapsed into (118):
(118) MAX-ROOT-IO » SONCON » *PK/[hi] » MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO
While (118) accounts for the Plural data, it can be easily seen that it would
favor coalescence in the Singular. This would lead to final labialized consonants,
which is not what we see in Standard Romanian, if we assume symmetry with the
Singular. Indeed, if we consider an output that expresses the Singular as secondary
articulation (labialization) on the final root consonant, that output would be
preferred to the deletion candidate and emerge as the illicit winner in (110):
(119) Table 36 MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO (coalescence wrongly predicted in the
Singular)
/mo +u
Sg.
/
MAX-IO UNIFORMITY-IO
a. " [mo
w
]
Sg.
*
b. / [mo -Ø]
Sg.
*!
As anticipated, deletion of the high vowel affix in the winning candidate
(119b.)
88
causes it to incur a fatal violation of MAX-IO (the fact that the intended
winner does not emerge as the actual candidate is symbolized by ‘ / ’). On the
88
There are dialects of Romanian that allow final labialized consonants (see §2). I will return to
this property in §3, where I discuss the factorial typology issue in number marking.
198
other hand, the ranking in (119) does work for the Plural, where palatalization
occurs whenever SONCON is not violated. This means that we have to take into
account other dimensions of morpho-phonological variation in Romanian number
inflection, in particular secondary articulation, and the forces that drive it. As we
shall see, we are dealing with a phonological process that shows morphological
conditioning.
1.3.2.4 Licensing marked phonological structure in the Plural
As already noted, the main asymmetry between the Singular and the Plural in
Standard Romanian masculines and neuters resides in the fact that the exponent of
the latter category is never deleted in the actual output and can surface as
palatalization on the final consonant of the stem. I interpret this property as driven
by a licensing constraint that allows for consonants with secondary articulation in
the grammatically marked category (Plural).
The relevant constraint is an instantiation of LICENSE(M,g) already
introduced in Chapter 3, that allows marked phonological material M in the
marked member (g) of grammatical category G, singled out by relatively lower
frequency of occurrence (ϕ). In accordance with the properties of marked
grammatical categories discussed in Chapter 2, the frequency of occurrence of
nominals inflected for the Plural is generally lower than the frequency of
occurrence of nominals inflected for the Singular. The relevant licensing
constraint, where the marked structure M is a consonant with secondary
199
articulation (C
Sec.
)
and g is the Plural, is defined in (120), following the definition
already introduced in Chapter 3 §4
89
:
(120) LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PLURAL)
Let
i. m be an occurrence of phonological structure C
Sec.
in an output O
ii. γ be an occurrence of the morpho-syntactic feature(s) for a value ‘plural’ of
the grammatical category of Number
Then m in the Phonological Structure (PS) of an output O implies γ in the
Morphological Structure (MS) of same output O.
Informally, the licensing constraint in (120) states that for every occurrence
of a consonant with secondary articulation C
Sec.
in an output, the respective output
has the morpho-syntactic feature ‘plural’; in other words, consonants with
secondary articulation occur only in Plural outputs. As we have seen in Chapter 3,
the licensing factor is the presence of the morpho-syntactic feature ‘plural’; in turn,
the category ‘Plural’ as the grammatically marked member of Number is
determined by the lower frequency of occurrence of words inflected for the Plural.
As shown as early as in Greenberg (1966a.) for Latin, Sanskrit, French and
Russian, Plurals, in accordance with their place on the markedness hierarchy, have
a lower frequency of occurrence than Singular forms:
89
In the following section I will discuss evidence for the markedness of C
Sec.
.
200
(121) Table 37 Frequencies of occurrence of Number category values
Language Size of Sample Singular Plural Dual
Sanskrit 93,277 70.3 25.1 4.6
Latin (Terence) 8,342 85.2 14.8 N/A
Russian 8,194 77.7 22.3 N/A
French 1,000 74.3 25.7 N/A
No statistic data were available in the literature for Romanian nominal
Plurals and Singulars, so I computed the frequency of occurrence of the relevant
categories on a sample text consisting of about one third of the novel Bunavestire
[Annunciation] by Nicolae Breban (2002). The text is a piece of contemporary
Romanian prose, with balanced expository and dialogue parts. The text sample
was analyzed using WordSmith Tools version 3.0, a lexical analysis program
developed by Scott (1996) for Oxford University Press.
WordSmith Tools was used to generate the list of words used in the text
together with the respective token frequencies. First, all words that did not qualify
as nominals were removed from the list and only nouns and adjectives were
retained. As many adjectives are homophonous with verbal past participles and
serve for the formation of perfect tenses, I subsequently decided to remove them
from the list as well. This procedure yielded a list of 7,089 items (Singular and
Plural nouns). Out of those, 6,090 items were Singular forms, which corresponds
to 85.1% Singulars and 14.9% Plurals. The results are comparable with those of
Greenberg (1966a.) and show that Plural nominals occur with significantly less
frequency as compared to their Singular counterparts.
201
Returning to LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PLURAL), the constraint is relevant for outputs
that contain consonants with secondary articulation. If those outputs are
morphologically inflected for the Plural, the constraint is satisfied; if, on the other
hand, the outputs are inflected for the Singular, the constraint is violated.
We can now reconsider the illicit winner [mo
w
]
Sg.
(‘old man’) in Tableau
(119). The fact that for stems ending in a single consonant suffix vowel deletion is
preferred to labialization indicates that LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PLURAL) dominates MAX-
IO, a ranking which blocks coalescence in the Singular:
(122) Table 38 LICENSE (C
Sec.
, PL.) » MAX-IO (no coalescence in the Singular)
/mo +u
Sg.
/
LICENSE (C
Sec.
, PL.) MAX-IO
a. " [mo -Ø]
Sg.
*
b. [mo
w
]
Sg.
*!
An examination of (122) shows that LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PLURAL) rules out
outputs that contain consonants with secondary articulation that are not inflected
for the (more marked) Plural. Accordingly, candidate (122b.), a Singular form with
final labialization, violates the licensing constraint and loses in spite of satisfying
low-ranking MAX-IO.
Before introducing other constraints relevant for the analysis and
discussing their place in the constraint hierarchy, let us recall that one of the
pivotal assumptions in the licensing mechanism proposed for Romanian is the fact
that consonants with secondary articulation (in particular, palatalized consonants)
202
represent marked phonological material. I will address this issue in more detail in
the following section.
1.3.2.5 Palatalized consonants as marked phonological structure
Cross-linguistically, palatalized consonants (C
j
) are more marked than their plain
counterparts (C). Various arguments can be brought to bear on this assertion.
From the point of view of complexity, consonants with secondary
articulation are more complex with respect to autosegmental makeup, a criterion
for structural markedness discussed by Rice and Avery (1995), who claim that
segmental markedness increases with the amount of structure. If we consider the
autosegmental representation in (123) according to Clements (1985), we can see
that a palatalized consonant (123b.) has a secondary vocalic place of articulation
that is missing from the representation of the plain segment (123a.). This is shown
in (123):
(123) a. C b. C
| |
C-Pl C-Pl
| 2
coronal coronal V-Pl
|
coronal
Frequency of occurrence in phonological inventories across languages is
also relevant in the sense that secondary articulations are relatively rare. The
asymmetry, noted by Greenberg (1966a.), is substantiated by the data in the
203
UPSID database (Maddieson 1984), where only 21 out of 318 languages are noted
to have distinctive palatalization.
Also, Padgett (2003a.) discusses the relative articulatory markedness of
palatalized versus plain consonants, and Haspelmath (2005) mentions the fact that
palatalized consonants are sometimes subject to distributional restrictions (for
example, Russian palatalized consonants are prohibited before liquids). In
parochial terms, individual palatalized consonants have been shown to be
phonologically more marked than the corresponding sounds without secondary
articulation (for an illustration, see the work of Zygis 2004 on palatalized rhotics
in Slavic, where articulatory and aerodynamic characteristics as well distribution
in sound inventories are brought to bear on the issue). In general, from an
articulatory perspective, as already shown in Chapter 2, consonants with secondary
articulation represent a type of marked phonological structure due to their
complexity.
From the perspective of Optimality Theory, the general occurrence of
consonants with secondary articulation as a marked structure is prohibited in
outputs by constraints belonging to the *STRUC family (Prince and Smolensky
1993/2004, Zoll 1993). For the analysis of Romanian nominals I assume an
instantiation of this constraint, which is stated in (124):
(124) *C
Sec.
‘No consonants with secondary articulation’
204
Although phonologically marked, secondary articulation is attested in
morphological processes in a variety of languages. In particular, palatalization
cases are represented by Polish (Padgett and Zygis 2003, Rubach 1984, 2002 etc.),
Russian (Padgett 2001, 2003b, Padgett and Zygis 2003, Kochetov 2001/2002 etc.),
Japanese (Mester and Itô 1989) and Celtic (Russell 1995), to mention only a few.
As regards labialization as the phonological expression of a morphological marker,
very well studied in the literature is labialization in Chaha/Inor (Johnson 1975,
McCarthy 1983, Hendricks 1989, Rose 1994, Zoll 1996).
Having discussed the relative markedness of consonants with secondary
articulation, let us pursue the analysis of Romanian nominal number.
1.3.2.6 The emergence of the Marked in the Marked Schema
We have seen that in the Singular high vowel deletion operates over inputs
whenever the result is an output that has a licit syllable coda. Also, coalescence of
the high vowel Number suffix is prohibited in the grammatically unmarked
Singular, but allowed in the marked Plural. The phenomena analyzed thus far are
summarized below:
(125) Table 39 Summary rankings for Romanian
Process Ranking Tableau
High vowel deletion SONCON » *PK/[hi] » MAX-IO (114)
No coalescence in the Singular LICENSE (C
Sec.
, PL.) » MAX-IO (122)
Coalescence in the Plural MAX-IO » UNIFORMITY-IO (116)
205
To make the picture complete, we note that in the Plural secondary
articulation is preferred to deletion, as shown in (126):
(126) Table 40 MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
(secondary articulation preferred to deletion)
/mo +i
Pl.
/
MAX-IO *C
Sec.
a. " [mo
j
]
Pl.
*
b. [mo -Ø]
Pl.
*!
Tableau (126) shows that the realization of the Plural affix is mandatory
and can be achieved via coalescence of the high vowel of the Number morpheme
with the final consonant of the stem. This occurs even though the result is a
consonant with secondary articulation. It is therefore preferable to have an output
with final palatalization (126a.), although it violates the constraint against
secondary articulations, rather than delete the affix vowel altogether (126b.).
From the analysis laid out so far, it appears that palatalization is
unavoidable in the Plural, except, of course, outputs where the process generates
codas rising in sonority, as in the case of akri (‘sour-plural’), where the output akr
j
fatally violates undominated SONCON. It is also important to note that
palatalization is minimal, that is, it never applies more than once. Consider, for the
sake of the argument, a Plural input that has palatalization on the initial stem
consonant, like /m
j
o+i
Pl.
/ (‘old men’). The essential conflict that prevents
excessive palatalization is the one between *C
Sec.
and the feature correspondence
constraint IDENT[hi], defined below:
206
(127) IDENT[hi] ‘Correspondent segments have identical feature
specifications for the feature [high].’
To see how excessive palatalization is prevented in outputs,
consider the input-output mappings in (128):
(128) Table 41 *C
Sec.
» IDENT[hi] (minimal occurrence of secondary articulations)
/m
j
o+i
Pl.
/
*C
Sec.
IDENT[hi]
a. " [mo
j
]
Pl.
* **
b. [m
j
o
j
]
Pl.
**! *
Neither of the candidates in (128) satisfies both relevant constraints.
However, the winner (128a.) incurs only one violation of top-ranked *C
Sec.
,
although it violates IDENT[hi] twice (first, for not faithfully parsing the height
feature on the first consonant of the root, and second by doing so on the affix
vowel in the input). In contrast, the sub-optimal candidate (128b.) incurs too many
violations of *C
Sec.
and loses to the winner although it is more faithful with respect
to the feature [high].
Before concluding the analysis, a word is in place as regards the locus of
secondary articulation in the Number inflected word. In (128) we saw that a
candidate with both initial and final palatalization is ruled out by excessive
violations of *C
Sec.
, what would prevent palatalization exclusively on the first
consonant of the root? The answer to the question lies in the inflectional
207
morphology of Romanian, which is exclusively a suffixing language. We can
therefore assume that affix alignment to the right edge of the prosodic word, a
constraint that is undominated in the language, rules out candidates with non-final
palatalization that *C
Sec
alone
.
does not exclude, like [m
j
o]
Pl.
.
We can now spell out the final constraint lattice for Romanian number
marking:
(129) Figure 11 Constraint lattice for Number marking in Romanian
SONCON, MAX-ROOT-IO
|
LIC(C
Sec.
, PL.) *PK/[hi]
|
MAX-IO MIM ranking
|
*C
Sec.
UNIFORMITY-IO
|
IDENT[hi]
Lattice (129) expresses the observed fact that in Romanian high vowel
peaks are prohibited unless the outcome of deletion results in an illicit coda
(penalized by SONCON). Also, high vowels coalesce with a consonant to form a
secondary articulation, except when C
Sec.
is not in a Plural form, in which case the
high vowel can delete, subject to the same condition on coda well-formedness.
The hierarchy in (129) also accounts for Marked in the Marked effects in
Romanian nominal morphology. In the grammatically marked Plural, secondary
articulation is preferred to high vowel deletion due to MAX-IO dominating *C
Sec.
.
208
Nevertheless, the coalescence process seen in the Plural is blocked in the
unmarked Singular due to the activity of LICENSE (C
Sec.
, PL.) that dominates MAX-
IO.
In sum, the workings of the Marked in the Marked schema in Romanian,
obscured with nominal roots ending in unsyllabifiable consonant clusters due to
undominated SONCON, become visible in roots that can form licit codas via high
vowel deletion or palatalization.
2. Number expression in dialects of Romanian
2.1 North-Western Transylvanian
The data considered so far are drawn from the standard dialect of Romanian
spoken north of the Danube (the so-called ‘literary standard’). In this dialect, as we
have seen, expressing the category of number by secondary articulation on the
final consonant of the root is possible only in the Plural, where it is specifically
licensed. No instances of contrastive palatalization exist unless they are the result
of pluralization, so for example a word-internal consonant does not palatalize
90
.
Labialization is of course unavailable in all positions.
An examination of Romanian dialects reveals an interesting fact, namely
that in some geographical varieties of Romanian final labialization in the Singular
and final palatalization in the Plural are attested as long as the falling sonority
90
We have seen that word-internal palatalization is not attested due to the suffixal nature of the
Plural marker.
209
contour is observed in codas. The phenomenon in question manifests itself in
certain dialects spoken in North-Western Transylvania (NWT), where Singular
forms like the ones in (130) have been documented (Rusu 1983):
(130) Final labialized singulars in North-Western Transylvanian Romanian
unt
w
/unt-u
Sg.
/ ‘butter’
mo
w
/mo -u
Sg.
/ ‘old man’
kap
w
/kap-u
Sg.
/ ‘head’
In the opinion of some researchers, the source of final labialization in the
singular is controversial (see Rusu 1983 for a review). Historically, the Singular
marker -u is the reflex of the Latin theme vowel of the second declension nouns
such as lup-u-s (‘wolf’), which (Standard) Romanian inherits as lup, with
(diachronic) high vowel apocope after the demise of the Latin nominative suffix -s.
In §1.2.3 I argued, from a synchronic perspective, that although not always present
in outputs in contemporary Standard Romanian, the marker -u is underlyingly
present as the exponent of the Singular number. The arguments adduced for
Standard Romanian are valid in NWT Romanian. The question is whether
speakers of NWT Romanian preserve final /u/ as labialization as a vestige of the
Latin theme vowel in a limited number of words, and the answer to it is negative,
due to speakers’ lack of access to diachronic information.
210
Research by Rusu (1983) demonstrates that final labialization in NWT is
an active process in contemporary NWT, as shown by the treatment of loanwords.
For example, the noun televizor
w
(‘TV set’) is pronounced with final labialization,
which indicates not only that analogy has allowed speakers to reconstruct and
generalize the underlying Singular affix, but also that the underlying Singular
marker is retained. The phenomena in NWT can also be used to argue for the
similarity of Romanian high vowel affixes [-i] and [-u], which pattern with respect
to both apocope patterns and ability to coalesce with the final consonant of the
stem, generating secondary articulations (C
j
and C
w
, respectively).
The situation in the NWT dialect of Romanian can be used to illustrate the
factorial typology based on the Marked in the Marked Schema. As we have seen in
§1.3.2.6, the constraint hierarchy LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH » *C
Sec.
(supplemented by constraints on the distribution of high vowels in Romanian like
*PK/[hi]) accounts for the asymmetry in number marking in Standard Romanian.
As already shown in the discussion of the factorial typology associated
with the MIM Schema (Chapter 3), we expect that if the relevant faithfulness
constraint is ranked higher that both the markedness constraint *C
Sec.
and the
licensing constraint LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) both the Singular and the Plural will
surface as final secondary articulations. Consider, by way of example, the North
West Transylvanian forms mo
w
(‘old man’) and mo
j
(old men’):
211
(131) Table 42 *PK/[hi], MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
/mo
1
+u
2Sg.
/
*PK/[hi] MAX-IO *C
Sec.
LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
a. ) [mo
w
1,2
]
Sg.
* *
b. [mo
1
-Ø
2
]
Sg.
*!
c. [mo
1
u
2
]
Sg.
*!
The relevant faithfulness constraint in (131) is MAX-IO, which is fatally
violated by the deletion candidate (131b.). Candidate (131c.), which faithfully
realizes the Singular marker as a high vowel, loses due to a violation of *PK/[hi].
Note that UNIFORMITY-IO has to be dominated by MAX-IO, as in Standard
Romanian, in order to allow the coalescence candidate (131a.) to win.
The formation of the palatalized Plural of NWT nouns is illustrated in
(132):
(132) Table 43 *PK/[hi], MAX-IO » *C
Sec.
, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
/mo
1
+i
2Pl.
/
*PK/[hi] MAX-IO *C
Sec.
LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
a. ) [mo
j
1,2
]
Pl.
*
b. [mo
1
-Ø
2
]
Pl.
*!
c. [mo
1
i
2
]
Pl.
*!
Tableau (132) shows that in NWT the Plural patterns with the Singular
with respect to the expression of Number. The actual output (132a.) satisfies both
high-ranking constraints (*PK/[hi] and MAX-IO), while candidate (132b.) violates
MAX-IO, and (132c.), *PK/[hi].
212
2.2 Aromanian
The survey of Romanian nominal morphology would be incomplete without
mentioning the phonological treatment of number morphemes in Aromanian, a
dialect of Romanian spoken south of the Danube, mainly in Greece and former
Yugoslavia (Caragiu-Marioteanu 1968, 1975).
Like all dialects of Romanian, Aromanian enforces a strict ban on codas
rising in sonority. Pluralization strategies are the same as in Standard Romanian
and North-Western Transylvanian, namely final palatalization or preservation of
the high vowel affix to prevent illicit codas. What distinguishes Aromanian from
the other dialects is the faithful emergence of the singular suffix /u/, irrespective of
the phonotactics of the stem:
(133) Aromanian Number morphology
a) /mo -u
Sg.
/ → [mo u]
Sg
‘old man’
/mo -i
Pl.
/ → [mo
j
]
Pl.
‘old men’
b) /akr-u
Sg.
/ → [akru]
Sg.
‘sour-masculine-singular’
/akr-i
Pl.
/ → [akri]
Pl.
‘sour-masculine-plural’
The data in (133) indicate that in the Aromanian dialect faithfulness (MAX-
IO) dominates *PK/[hi], as the Singular affix has a full high vowel correspondent
213
in the output, and *PK/[hi] is dominated by LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.), to prevent
secondary articulations in the Singular:
(134) Table 44 MAX-IO, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) »*PK/[hi], *C
Sec.
/mo
1
+u
2Sg.
/
MAX-IO LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) *PK/[hi] *C
Sec.
a. ) [mo
1
u
2
]
Sg.
*
b. [mo
1
-Ø
2
]
Sg.
*!
c. [mo
w
1,2
]
Sg.
*! *
The emergence of the full vowel Singular affix candidate as the actual
output in (134) is ensured by undominated faithfulness and licensing of secondary
articulation in the Plural. The deletion candidate (134b.) loses due to a violation of
the relevant faithfulness constraint (MAX-IO), whereas the labialization candidate
(134c.) incurs a fatal violation of the licensing constraint, which prohibits the
respective structure outside the Plural.
The analysis of Plural forms offers us a ranking argument for *PK/[hi] and
*C
Sec.
:
(135) Table 45 MAX-IO, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) »*PK/[hi] » *C
Sec.
/mo
1
+i
2Pl.
/
MAX-IO LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) *PK/[hi] *C
Sec.
a. ) [mo
j
1,2
]
Pl.
*
b. [mo
1
-Ø
2
]
Pl.
*!
c. [mo
1
i
2
]
Pl.
*!
214
Failure to realize the Plural suffix penalizes candidate (135b.), while the
presence of the full vowel Plural marker causes candidate (135c.) to lose to the
winner, (135a.).
We can now flesh out a factorial typology of number marking in Romanian
and extend the results to Romance.
3. Towards a factorial typology of Number marking in Romance
I start by summarizing the main features of Number marking in the dialects of
Romanian considered in this chapter.
In the nominal morphology of Standard Romanian (SR), secondary
articulation occurs only in the (marked) Plural, and is prohibited in the (unmarked)
Singular. This is the consequence of the Marked in the Marked Schema
(LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » MAX-IO » C
Sec.
). In North-Western Transylvanian
Romanian (NWT), secondary articulations occur both in the Singular and in the
Plural. Finally, in Aromanian (AR), secondary articulation is allowed in the Plural
and prohibited in the Singular, where, unlike in SR, the high vowel affix /u
Sg.
/ is
always retained as a segment. The relevant constraint rankings for the three
dialects are given in (136):
215
(136) Table 46 Constraint rankings for Romanian dialects
Constraint ranking Languages Pattern
(a) (*PK/[hi] ») LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH » *C
Sec.
Standard
Romanian
MIM
(b) FAITH, (*PK/[hi]) » LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.), *C
Sec.
NWT
Romanian
Full
contrast
(c) FAITH, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » (*PK/[hi]) » *C
Sec.
Aromanian MIM
(d) *C
Sec.
» FAITH, (LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)) Not attested in
Romanian
Lack of
variation
If we disregard, for simplicity, the activity of *PK/[hi] in the constraint
hierarchies, we note that SR (136a.) illustrates the Marked in the Marked Schema
(the marked phonological structure occurs only in the marked category ‘Plural’).
NWT (136b.) represents the case where the marked phonological structure occurs
both inside and outside the marked grammatical category (the ‘full contrast’ case
in the sense of Kager 1999, to appear)
91
. AR is essentially a sub-case of SR in that
secondary articulation is attested only in the Plural, but differs from it with respect
to the treatment of the high vowel suffix /-u
Sg.
/, which is generalized across the
whole nominal paradigm.
A fourth conceivable constraint ranking (136d.)
92
, the one where
phonological markedness (*C
Sec.
) dominates faithfulness (and possibly licensing),
represents Kager’s ‘lack of variation’ pattern and is not attested among the dialects
of Romanian under investigation.
91
Consonants with secondary articulation do not occur as part of the language’s phoneme
inventory (due to the ranking *C
Sec.
» IDENT[hi])
92
(129d.) represents the ‘lack of variation’ case (Kager 1999, to appear).
216
This is not to say that we are dealing with a real gap in the factorial
typology. Rather we are faced with a particular situation in which the occurrence
of a marked phonological structure (consonants with secondary articulation) is
subject to restrictions that have to do with licensing in the marked grammatical
category (Plural). Within the wider domain of Romance, it is worth noting that
there are languages in which secondary articulation is not permitted as an
expression of Number, and all Number affixes surface as full vowels.
The Italian data in (137) illustrate this type of Number morphology:
(137) Number marking in Italian
Thematic Vowel Plural feature Outputs(Sg./Pl.)
(a) a [coronal] kás-a – kás-e ‘house(s)’
(b) o [coronal] múr-o – múr-i ‘wall(s)’
(c) e [coronal] kwór-e – kwór-i ‘heart(s)’
For Italian it has been proposed that the Plural marker is a floating
[coronal] feature that docks onto the thematic vowel of the noun (Saltarelli 2001).
Before we conclude this section, a note is in place regarding the possibility to
extend the MIM account to situations in Romance where Number involves sub-
segmental affixation, as illustrated in (137) above
93
. Without attempting a detailed
analysis of such situations, we can note that in Italian type languages both the
93
For a recent discussion of the morpho-phonological phenomena surrounding Plural formation in
Romance by means of [coronal] affixation, see also d’Hulst (2006).
217
Singular and Plural forms are thematic and the Plural marker is represented by a
[coronal] feature that applies onto the theme vowel. In a sub-segmental approach
to Romance Number, the formation of Plural is therefore asymmetric in the sense
that the Plural is formed from the Singular base by feature affixation to the theme
vowel. Given the way in which the MIM generalization was stated (Chapter 1,
Chapter 2 §2), a certain degree of phonological similarity between grammatical
category forms is assumed. For example, if g and g’ are members of a grammatical
category G such that g > g’ in point of markedness, the phonological makeup of g
and g’ is relatively similar (inflectional affixes are identical underlyingly or pattern
with respect to phonological behavior). Under such circumstances, the asymmetry
with respect to the presence of marked phonological structure M in output words
inflected for g (but not in g’) can be said to be functionally grounded in terms of
frequency of occurrence and not simply due to phonological factors. As a
consequence, instances of asymmetric sub-segmental affixation should not fall
under the scope of the MIM generalization, at least in its strict formulation.
Nevertheless, as appears from (136), the factorial typology of the MIM
schema does predict the existence of such ‘asymmetric’ Number systems. In
Romance, for the relevant dimension considered (secondary articulation), they are
instantiated by languages without secondary articulation in the Singular and the
Plural and with sub-segmental affixation in the Plural. The hierarchy in (136d.),
which accounts for such cases, corresponds to a ‘lack of variation’ case with
respect to secondary articulation in the expression of Number; moreover, in such
218
languages secondary articulation does not occur, at least with respect to the
phonological expression of Number. While important for the elucidation of the
mechanism of Plural formation in Romance, the particular fact that the Plural
formative is a sub-segment affixed to a Singular base bears relatively little
relevance to MIM effects proper. To conclude, no matter what analysis we adopt
for Italian and other Romance languages where there is no secondary articulation
as Number inflection (full vowel Number affix or floating feature/sub-segment on
the theme vowel), secondary articulations are not licensed as a means of
expressing Number in those languages. They are closer to the pattern of (Classical)
Latin, where no word-final palatalization occurred word-finally, and their behavior
is captured by the hierarchy in (138), which repeats (136d.) (FAITH » PK/[hi]):
(138) *C
Sec.
» FAITH (LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
In the same context of number expression in Romance nominals, the
applicability of the Marked in the Marked schema can be assessed in Romanian if
we consider an alternative scenario. Recall than in §1.2 of this chapter evidence
was brought to support the idea that masculine and neuter Romanian nominals all
have the underlying theme vowel /u/ in the Singular, and that the high vowel
marker deletes except when necessary for syllabification. However, there is an
alternative scenario according to which non-alternating Singular forms in
Romanian (like mo , ‘old man’) are not marked underlyingly with /u/. According
219
to such a view, the final vowel [u] in forms whose stem ends in an unsyllabifiable
consonant cluster (like akru, ‘sour’) is epenthetic, and its insertion is necessary in
order to satisfy the sonority sequencing requirement imposed by undominated
SONCON. Considering such a scenario becomes necessary in the broader context of
Romance morpho-phonology if we consider epenthesis accounts that have been
proposed for Spanish (see Contreras 1977; Harris 1969, 1980 and Saltarelli 1970,
2001 for discussion surrounding Spanish epenthesis).
The question that needs to be addressed is whether the MIM schema
proposed for Romanian can handle consonant-final masculines and neuters which
are not vowel-final underlyingly. The answer to this question is in the affirmative
and will be presented in its essential lines in the remainder of this section
94
.
Consider first nominals ending in a single consonant or a syllabifiable
consonant cluster (the mo type). These nominals fall under the scope of ranking
(136a.) or the MIM Schema proper (LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH » *C
Sec.
), where
FAITH covers both MAX-IO and DEP-IO. A relevant tableau is presented in (139):
(139) Table 47 *PK/[hi] » LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH (MAX/DEP-IO) » *C
Sec.
/mo
Sg.
/
LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) FAITH *C
Sec.
a. ) [mo ]
Sg.
b. [mo u]
Sg.
*!
c. [mo
w
]
Sg.
* (*) *
94
Again, it should be noted that this is not an application of the MIM generalization in its strict
sense, where there should be relative phonological similarity between Singular and Plural.
However, as we will see in the remainder of this section, the MIM Schema can be used to account
for the Standard Romanian facts under an ‘epenthesis’ scenario.
220
Although the vertical lines in (139) are solid, the tableau as such does not
offer ranking arguments for the constraints in question – they have been provided
by the analysis of nouns with underlying theme vowels. The actual output (139a.)
satisfies all relevant constraints. The epenthesis candidate (139b.) violates
faithfulness (DEP-IO), while the other sub-optimal candidate (139c.) violates both
the licensing constraint and the markedness constraint against consonants with
final labialization (depending on the scenario that leads to final labialization, this
candidate may also violate faithfulness).
To account for ‘epenthesis’ forms such as akru (‘sour’), the relevant sub-
hierarchy is MAX-ROOT-IO, SONCON » *PK/[hi] » FAITH extracted from the
constraint lattice for number marking in Romanian (129):
(140) Table 48 MAX-ROOT-IO, SONCON » *PK/[hi] » FAITH (MAX/DEP-IO)
/akr
Sg.
/ MAX-ROOT-IO SONCON *PK/[hi] FAITH
a. ) [akru]
Sg.
* *
b. [akr]
Sg.
*!
c. [ak]
Sg.
*! *
It can be seen that MAX-ROOT-IO and SONCON are actually enough to yield
the actual output (140a.) in Tableau (140). The fully faithful candidate (140b.)
loses due to a fatal violation of SONCON, since it has a coda rising in sonority.
Also, the deletion candidate (140c.) is eliminated due to the fact that it incurs a
violation of undominated MAX-ROOT-IO.
221
It appears therefore that the analysis proposed for Standard Romanian
under the assumption that Singular nominals are underlyingly marked with /-u/
carries over to the hypothetical scenario according to which Singular forms are
underlyingly bare stems, and [-u], to the extent it appears in outputs, is epenthetic.
This makes the analysis of Standard Romanian in principle applicable to
epenthesis cases in Romance. As in the case of Romance sub-segmental affixation,
this is an interesting result, because MIM was stated as a generalization made
under phonological similarity in the sense that the Singular and the Plural have
similar phonological exponents (high vowels).
The Marked in the Marked Schema in Number inflection is thus adequate
to account for the observed facts in the dialects of Romanian under investigation as
well as in other Romance languages where Number is expressed by means of
vocalic affixes or asymmetric sub-segment affixation.
Having discussed the factorial typology of the MIM Schema in dialects of
Romanian and its possible extensions to Romance, let us explore some historical
implications. Within an optimality-theoretic approach to diachrony, it is commonly
assumed that language change involves constraint reranking (for work on language
change in Optimality Theory see, among others, Jacobs 1995, Bermúdez-Otero
1996, Cho 1998, Green 2001, Oh 2002). As for what constraints undergo
promotion or demotion in the reranking process, there is no agreement among
specialists. For example, while some researchers claim that language change
222
involves promotion of markedness constraints
95
and creates unmarked structure,
(Billerey 2000, Gess 2001, Green 2001, Kiparsky 2004 etc.), other researchers
highlight the role of markedness demotion in diachronic change, resulting in the
emergence of marked structure (Albright 2004, Deo and Sharma 2005, Morin
2005).
What is the contribution the study of MIM effects can make to the
understanding of the reranking processes in language change? Romanian, one of
the case studies presented in this dissertation (Chapter 5) allows us to shed light on
the relation between constraint reranking and the diachronic emergence of MIM
patterns, at least for the linguistic system in question.
Recall that Standard Romanian enforces a ban on final high vowels, in
particular on the affixes -u (Singular) and -i (Plural), so that whenever these
vowels are not required for syllabification they are either deleted (Singular,
(141a.)) or coalesced with the final consonant of the stem, yielding consonants
with secondary articulation (Plural, (141b.)):
(141) Standard Romanian
/lup-u
Sg.
/ → [lup]
Sg.
*[lupu] ‘wolf’
/lup-i
Pl.
/ → [lup
j
]
Pl.
*[lupi] ‘wolves’
95
In this respect, language change would represent the opposite of language acquisition, a process
which has been claimed to involve demotion of markedness constraints (Tesar and Smolensky
1993, 1996, 1998, Gnanadesikan 1996, Hayes 2004 etc.)
223
Earlier in this section I showed that that the Standard Romanian facts are
essentially derivable from a MIM Schema represented, in a simplified form, as
(*PK/[hi] ») LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » FAITH » *C
Sec.96
. In Late Latin or in Common
Romanian (a reconstructed stage in the development of Romanian prior to its
breakup into dialects around the 10
th
century A.D.), Number affixes were always
present in the output as full vowels, with no deletion or coalescence:
(142) Late Latin (Common Romanian)
/lup-u
Sg.
/ → [lupu]
Sg.
*[lup] ‘wolf’
/lup-i
Pl.
/ → [lupi]
Pl.
*[lup
j
] ‘wolves’
The Late Latin (Common Romanian) pattern is represented by the ‘lack of
variation’ hierarchy presented above, *C
Sec.
» FAITH, (LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.),
*PK/[hi]). As part of the factorial typology of the MIM Schema, two other
constraint hierarchies have been presented: full contrast, FAITH, (*PK/[hi]) »
LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.), *C
Sec.
(North-Western Transylvanian, NWT) and a modified
version of MIM, FAITH, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) » (*PK/[hi]) » *C
Sec.
(Aromanian). The
complex picture which represents the diachronic emergence of Romanian dialects
is shown in (143) below:
96
Constraints which are part of the MIM Schema are given in italics.
224
(143) Figure 12 Constraint reranking in the evolution of Romanian
Late Latin (Common Romanian)
lupu
Sg.
, lupi
Pl.
Lack of variation
*C
Sec.
» FAITH, (LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.), *PK/[hi])
(a) (b) (c)
Standard Romanian North-Western Transylvanian Aromanian
MIM Full contrast MIM
lup
Sg.
, lup
j
Pl.
lup
w
Sg.
, lup
j
Pl.
lupu
Sg.
, lup
j
Pl.
(*PK/[hi]) FAITH, (*PK/[hi]) FAITH, LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.)
LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.), *C
Sec.
(*PK/[hi])
FAITH *C
Sec.
*C
Sec.
If we consider the passage from Late Latin (Common Romanian) to
present-day dialects of Romanian, we note that both promotion and demotion of
markedness can be invoked. For example, the emergence of all of the three
patterns illustrates the demotion of the markedness constraint which prohibits the
occurrence of consonants with secondary articulation MIM pattern (*C
Sec.
). This
gives rise to a new, marked phonological structure represented by C
Sec.
. On the
other hand, we witness promotion of the licensing constraint above faithfulness in
Standard Romanian (143a.), which accounts for the Singular-Plural asymmetry
whereby consonants with secondary articulation occur in the grammatically Plural,
but are disallowed in the unmarked Singular. The presence of secondary
articulations in both the Singular and the Plural in North-Western Transylvanian
225
(143b.) is made possible by the demotion of LICENSE(C
Sec.
, PL.) and *C
Sec.
(and
possibly also by the demotion of *PK/[hi]). The Aromanian case (143c.) is similar
to that of Standard Romanian, with the exception of the relation between
faithfulness and licensing, which are not crucially ranked with respect to each
other. This allows for faithful parses of the affix in both the Singular and the
Plural, but secondary articulation only in the marked Plural.
In sum, as to the reranking issue illustrated by the emergence of Romanian
dialect patterns representing the factorial typology of the MIM Schema, no
decisive argument can be made as regards a consistent rule of markedness
promotion or demotion. Nevertheless, a unifying factor is represented by the
demotion of the context-free markedness constraint *M. As a cross-linguistic
generalization, this is a necessary condition for the emergence of MIM patterns in
the daughter language(s) where such patterns occur.
4. An alternative approach: Morpheme Realization
As already shown, a scrutiny of Romanian number morphology reveals an
asymmetry in the marking of Singular and Plural in that the latter is always
expressed overtly. It would therefore seem reasonable to consider an analysis in
terms of morpheme realization.
Constraints on morpheme realization have been proposed in the OT
literature in a variety of forms (Samek-Lodovici 1992, 1993, Gnanadesikan 1997,
Rose 1997, Walker 2000b, Kurisu 2001, Iscrulescu 2004a etc.). Although there are
226
sometimes important differences between individual implementations of
Morpheme Realization, most of the formulations have share the idea that inflected
outputs contain phonological material that is affiliated to the respective inflectional
morphemes. For example, Morpheme Realization can be stated as a
correspondence constraint operating between morphological and phonological
structure, as in Walker (2000b), Walker and Feng (2004), Iscrulescu (2004a) and
Feng (2006):
(144) REALIZE-MORPHEME ‘A morpheme (X) in the output Morphological
Structure has a correspondent in the Phonological
Structure of the output.’
Given the way Morpheme Realization is defined in (144), REALIZE-
MORPHEME has category-specific instantiations (Walker 2000b, Iscrulescu 2004a),
because it presupposes correspondence between particular functional nodes in the
Morphological Structure and material in the Phonological Structure. Thus we
distinguish constraints that require the realization of a certain morpheme if the
respective morpheme is represented by an inflectional node in the Morphological
Structure (INFLECTIONAL MORPHEME ∈ {NUMBER, CASE, PERSON, TENSE...}). For
the category of Number in Romanian, REALIZE-MORPHEME for the specific
morpheme ‘Plural’ is assessed as follows:
227
(145) Figure 13 Assessing Morpheme Realization
a. REALIZE-MORPHEME satisfied:
Morphological Structure NOUN-SG
Phonological Structure NOUN-u
Sg.
b. REALIZE-MORPHEME violated:
Morphological Structure NOUN-SG
Phonological Structure NOUN-Ø
Sg.
In (145a.), REALIZE-MORPHEME is satisfied for the Singular, because the
‘singular’ node in Morphological Structure (MS) has a correspondent in
Phonological Structure (PS). In (145b.), the constraint is violated, since the ‘plural’
node in MS lacks a correspondent in PS. The fact that plurality is always expressed
in Romanian nominals would indicate that REALIZE-PLURAL is undominated (in
descriptive terms, the syntactic head ‘plural’ in Morphological Structure always
has a correspondent in the Phonological Structure of the output). A problem with
the Morpheme Realization account is that REALIZE-MORPHEME (and in particular
REALIZE-PLURAL) is blind as to the specific way in which the plural morpheme is
realized, as long as there is detectable phonological material affiliated to it.
Another, more important objection to Morpheme Realization approaches is
represented by the fact that they potentially overgenerate. The argument I present
is based on Topintzi (2003), who shows that Morpheme Realization schemas are
228
inadequate for capturing the typology of Number marking. To adapt an example
due to Topintzi, a constraint hierarchy like UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
» REALIZE-
MORPHEME » UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
successfully captures the facts in Standard
Romanian and Aromanian (coalescence and secondary articulation in the Plural
only). The permutation REALIZE-MORPHEME » UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
, UNIFORMITY-
IO
Pl.
corresponds to the situation in North Western Transylvanian Romanian
(NWT), where secondary articulation is attested both in the Singular and the
Plural. Languages exist where no secondary articulation is allowed, either in the
Singular, or the Plural, under the ranking UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
, UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
»
REALIZE-MORPHEME (Romance languages like Italian). However, the factorial
typology associated with the Morpheme Realization schema would predict that
there are languages where there is secondary articulation in the Singular, but not in
the Plural (UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
» REALIZE-MORPHEME » UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
). The
rankings are summarized in (146):
229
(146) Table 49 Factorial typology with Morpheme Realization
Constraint ranking Facts Language
a. UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
» REALIZE-MORPHEME »
» UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
Secondary
articulation in
the Plural, not
the Singular
Standard
Romanian,
Aromanian
b. REALIZE-MORPHEME » UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
,
UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
Secondary
articulation in
Singular and
Plural
North
Western
Transylvanian
c. UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
, UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
»
» REALIZE-MORPHEME
No secondary
articulation in
Number
marking
Italian
d. UNIFORMITY-IO
Pl.
» REALIZE-MORPHEME »
» UNIFORMITY-IO
Sg.
Secondary
articulation in
the Singular,
not the Plural
Not attested
Languages such as those in (146a.), (146b.) and (146c.) are predicted to
exist both under the MIM approach and the Morpheme Realization schema. In
addition, the Morpheme Realization account predicts the existence of a type that is
not attested (146d.), for which the MIM model makes the correct prediction and
rules it out.
5. Summary
In this chapter I offered an account of Number marking in Romanian, where there
is a notable asymmetry between the grammatically marked Plural and the
unmarked Singular with respect to their ability to allow for marked phonological
structure (consonants with secondary articulation).
230
In Standard Romanian, which constitutes the focus of the analysis, the
Singular never sponsors secondary articulations as the (expected) result of the
coalescence of the high vowel affix with the final consonant of the root, while the
Plural displays palatalization whenever possible, in order to avoid a high vowel
syllable peak except when a faithful parse of the Number affix is necessary for
considerations of syllable well-formedness. Words that carry the morpho-syntactic
specification for the unmarked category (‘Singular’) do not allow for consonants
with secondary articulation, not even in final position before a front vowel.
Compare the nouns in (147):
(147) Blocking of secondary articulation in the Singular
a) /mimi/
Pl.
→ [mim
j
] ‘mimes’
b) /mimi/
Sg.
→ [mimi] ‘proper name, Mimi’
Although the forms (147) are similar in underlying segmental makeup, it is
only in the plural (147a.) that the final consonant palatalizes before the front vowel
[i], whereas no palatalization occurs in the singular form (147b.). In the plural
word we find both a plain [m] (word-initially) and a palatalized one [m
j
] word-
finally, the latter being the expression of plurality.
This is not to say that the Singular and the Plural cannot express a similar
range of contrasts. This possibility is instantiated by the North-West Transylvanian
231
dialect of Romanian, where both the Singular and the Plural can license secondary
articulations (labialization in the former and palatalization in the latter).
There is also the possibility of having no contrast between the categories in
point of plain and secondary articulation consonants, as we can see in other areas
of Romance (Latin, Italian), where only plain consonants occur.
What we do not see is a language in which the (unmarked) Singular
sponsors marked phonological structure that is disallowed in the (marked) Plural.
The Marked in the Marked Schema and the factorial typology based on it predicts
exactly this kind of result, which is in line with our predictions as to the
asymmetry induced by the different typological markedness status of the
categories.
232
CHAPTER 6
PHONOTACTIC MARKEDNESS IN MAYAK
0. Introduction
This chapter examines the application of the Marked in the Marked Schema
(LICENSE(M,g) » FAITH » *M) in a case of marked phonotactic structure in the
Mayak language. The relevant marked phonological structure is represented by
intervocalic stops in the grammatically marked Passive Voice.
In Mayak, intervocalic stops generally spirantize and undergo voicing, but
fail to do so in the Passive, while the less grammatically marked Active displays
regular intervocalic voiceless stop spirantization. It should be noted that both the
Active and the Passive are formed in a similar fashion, by suffixing a VC
morpheme to a consonant-final root. To complicate the matter, the continuant
obstruents that result from spirantization are allophones of the homorganic stops,
which obscures to a certain extent the activity of the Marked in the Marked
Schema and calls for the need of context-free markedness constraints to account
for such cases.
The Mayak phenomena are particularly interesting because they highlight
the interaction of the Marked in the Marked schema with allophonic variation, as
in the general case the segments that are the outcome of lenition are allophones of
the respective voiceless stops in intervocalic position.
233
In §1 I lay out the main facts about Mayak phonology and morphology that
are subject to analysis. §2 discusses the content and applicability of the notion
‘lenition’ in Mayak, as well as the phonological markedness of vowel-stop-vowel
sequences asymmetrically licensed in the Passive voice. §3 offers an analysis
along the lines of the Marked in the Marked schema and shows how the general
schema should be modified to accommodate the data and theory-internal
requirements such as Richness of the Base. In §4 I discuss an alternative analysis
and I show that the analysis put forth in this dissertation is superior. Finally, §5
briefly states the conclusion of the chapter.
1. Background data on Mayak phonology and morphology
1.1. The sound system and prosody of Mayak
Mayak (Northern Burun) is a Western Nilotic language spoken in the Blue Nile
Province of Sudan (Köhler 1955, Hall and Hall 1996). The Mayak data and
descriptive generalizations are due to Andersen (1999, 2000).
The vocalic inventory of Mayak comprises ten items, organized into two
sets distinguished by the feature [ATR]:
(148) Mayak vowel inventory
[-ATR] a
[+ATR] i e o u
234
The relatively complex consonant inventory is shown in (149) below:
(149) Table 50 Mayak consonants
Bilabial InterdentalAlveolarPalatalVelar Labio-
dental
Glottal
Voiceless
stop
p
t
t c k
Voiced stop b
d
d
g
Implosive
stop
Voiced
fricative
Nasal m
n
n
Lateral l
Trill r
Glide
(approximant)
j w
Not all of the segments in Table (149) represent phonemes. For example,
the dental nasal [n ] is an allophone of /n/ that occurs before dental stops. Of
particular interest for the present case study is the fact that the approximants [w, j]
and the fricatives [ , ] represent allophones of the homorganic voiceless stops in
intervocalic position. Thus [w] is an allophone of /p/, [j] an allophone of [c], [ ] an
allophone of /t / and [ ] an allophone of /k/ (Andersen (2000)). Likewise, the
implosive stop [ ] is an allophone of intervocalic /t/. Also, the voice contrast does
not operate in word final position, where stops are unspecified for [voice].
We should therefore not expect intervocalic voiceless stops in Mayak. As
we shall see, these stops normally undergo lenition and in most cases are turned
235
into voiced continuants when they end up between two vowels in processes of
affixation. The process of lenition fails to take place in the Passive voice, as
compared to the Active, under comparable phonological circumstances (affixation
of a VC marker to a CVC stem). I will return to these issues in §1.2. Intervocalic
voiceless stops are sometimes attested in simplex words that represent
unassimilated loans.
Mayak has a syllable inventory that excludes complex margins. The
following types of syllables are attested
97
:
(150) CV k ‘with’
g.n ‘bull’
CVV pii ‘water’
t aa.r k ‘person’
CVC r t ‘chief’
k l.kat ‘broom’
CVVC g k ‘dog’
d m.br ‘I weeded it’
97
The relevant syllables in polysyllabic words are given in bold type.
236
V a.t i.rim.biil ‘car’
98
i..r ‘I found you’
VV aa.m .l ‘I’ll dance’
VC al.bun ‘coffee’
1.2 Morpho-phonological processes
An important phonological process that affects Mayak consonants is lenition in
intervocalic position
99
. Mayak lenition affects the manner of articulation and voice
features of voiceless stops, which become voiced fricatives or approximants, while
the place of articulation is remains unchanged
100
:
(151) Intervocalic lenition
p → w
t →
c → j
k →
98
This word has an intervocalic voiceless stop ([t ]). It is most probably an unassimilated loan from
English (‘automobile’).
99
Another process that affects consonants is root-dominant coronal harmony, attested to some
degree in Mayak as well as in other related Western Nilotic languages like Päri (Andersen 1988,
1999).
100
The voiceless alveolar stop [t] has a particular behavior in intervocalic position and alternates
with the homorganic voiced implosive [ ]. I will discuss the behavior of [t] in more detail in § 2.
237
Intervocalic stop lenition is pervasive in Mayak morphology and affects
both nominal and verbal inflectional paradigms, where it ensues from affixation
processes.
In nouns, where most native roots are CVC or CVVC, lenition takes place
in the formation of number. Mayak has inflections for both the Singular and the
Plural, and stem-final stops lenite when a VC number suffix is attached. Lenition
in number morphology is illustrated in (152) below (in some of the forms ATR
vowel harmony occurs):
(152) Singular Plural
e -it t ‘faeces’
le - it l k ‘tooth’
iw- it ip ‘arrow’
naac n j-uk ‘calf’
m k m - k ‘spider’
Stem-final sonorants are not affected in intervocalic contexts:
238
(153) Singular Plural
kn-at kn ‘liver’
r m-at r m ‘blood’
ca ca -ak ‘donkey’
kl k l-ak ‘hole’
dir d ir-ak ‘shield’
In the Active voice, verbal morphology is subject to the same general
morpho-phonological rules. This can be illustrated in the formation of the Past
Tense active of subject-oriented transitive verbs:
(154) Uninflected stem Active
l p lew-u ‘open’
m t me -u ‘beat’
mat ma -u ‘suck’
kac kaj-u ‘bite’
t ak t a -u ‘wash’
239
However, in the passive voice intervocalic stems do not undergo expected
lenition of intervocalic stops. Consider again the same verb forms as in (154), this
time inflected for the passive:
(155) Uninflected stem Passive
l p l p- r ‘open’
m t m t - r ‘beat’
mat mat- r ‘suck’
kac kac- r ‘bite’
t ak t ak- r ‘wash’
The asymmetric phonological behavior of intervocalic stops in Mayak
verbs can be seen if we examine the inflectional paradigm of the verb maat (‘to
drink’), where the consonant-final stop regularly undergoes lenition in the Active
voice, but not in the Passive (note that the contexts in which lenition applies/ fails
to apply are very similar, as the relevant suffixes are all VC):
240
(156) /maaD / ‘to drink’
PASS maat - r ‘It is being drunk.’
1SG maa - r ‘I am drinking it.’
2SG maa-ir ‘You are drinking it.’
3SG maa - r ‘He is drinking it.’
1PL incl. maat -ini ‘We are drinking it.’
1PL excl. maa - nn ‘We are drinking it.’
2PL maa - r ‘You are drinking it.’
3PL maat -kr ‘They are drinking it.’
In the Mayak data at hand person and number is specified only for the
Active voice. It may be the case that in the Passive there is syncretism of person
and number, so only one output exists – Andersen (1999) mentions a unique form
in the Passive voice
101
. This situation has no essential impact on the analysis, since
both Active and Passive voice are VC, irrespective of Number or Person
specification.
Assuming underlying stem-final voiceless stops, we can see that in contrast
with the Passive, where the stop is realized faithfully with respect to continuancy,
all Active forms show spirantization of the intervocalic stop. The only apparent
101
This is in line with the observation of Greenberg (1966a), according to which marked
grammatical categories make fewer distinctions than unmarked categories.
241
exception is the plural inclusive maat -ini ‘we are drinking it’, whose stem-final
stop [t ] does not turn into homorganic [ ], as expected. Andersen (1999) attributes
to diachrony the failure of the stem-final stop to lenite in the Plural and in the
Passive. Historically, the first person Plural inclusive affix is consonant-initial
(t ini), and of course before a consonant-initial suffix the final stop of the root does
not spirantize.
From the perspective of this dissertation, the interesting fact is that
intervocalic stops do not lenite in the Passive voice, so the marked phonotactic
structure (VTV) occurs. In contrast, stops flanked by two vowels generally turn
into the homorganic voiced fricatives or approximants, with the exception of
alveolar [t], which alternates with the homorganic implosive [ ]. Before offering
an analysis of the Mayak facts, I will discuss the notion of lenition and the
phonological markedness of the phonotactic structures involved.
2. Lenition and phonological markedness
As we have seen, what Andersen (1999, 2000) labels ‘lenition’ in Mayak is
actually a bundle of processes that can be lumped into two groups. First, most
intervocalic voiceless stops [p, t , k, c] become voiced, continuant sounds, with the
same place of articulation ([w, , , j]). Second, the voiceless alveolar stop [t] has
a different behavior. In intervocalic position it does not change its manner of
articulation and instead becomes a homorganic implosive [ ].
242
Lenition is a somewhat imperspicuous term that covers a variety of
phonological phenomena that affect consonants, including degemination,
fricativization (spirantization), flapping, voicing, debuccalization and even
deletion. Among processes of lenition, fricativization is very well represented
cross-linguistically. In this respect, Lavoie (2001) finds that fricativization is
represented in a significant proportion of the lenition language database under
study (39 of 92 languages). According to Kirchner (1998, 2000, 2004), what
underlies lenition phenomena is the articulatory criterion, according to which all
instances of lenition involve some form of reduction of constriction degree
(see Kirchner 1998 and the references therein for an extensive discussion and
review).
Of interest from the perspective of the present study is the relative
phonological markedness of the phonotactic structures involved in Mayak
intervocalic lenition. In general, lenition processes involve a decrease in
markedness of phonological structure (Lavoie 2001). More recently,
Vijayakrishnan (2003) characterizes lenition as reduction of marked structure
resulting in ‘weak’, relatively unmarked configurations, together with an overall
increase in sonority.
Recall that the structure that is subject to lenition in Mayak is represented
by a voiceless stop flanked by two vowels. From an articulatory point of view,
producing a voiceless stop after a vowel involves an increase of the constriction
degree (lower for the first vowel as compared to the adjacent stop) followed by a
243
decrease of constriction necessary for the articulation of the post-consonantal
vowel. At the same time, along the dimension of voicing, the state of the vocal
folds changes from vowel to voiceless stop and then to vowel. In contrast, a
phonotactic structure consisting of a voiced fricative/approximant flanked by
vowels involves more economical articulatory gestures. The vowel-stop passage
calls for less variation in the constriction degree; also, the sequence is voiced
throughout and no change is required in the state of the vocal folds. Thus
intervocalic voiceless stops qualify as an articulatorily less natural, phonologically
more marked structure. The lenition of intervocalic voiceless stops results in a
decrease of articulatory gesture magnitude especially in the transition from vowel
to consonant and from consonant to vowel and hence less articulatory markedness.
Lenition of intervocalic or postvocalic stops to voiced fricatives/
approximants is common cross-linguistically and is attested in a large number of
languages, such as Spanish (Harris 1969, Martínez Celdrán 1991, Quilis 1993,
Lewis 2001, Gonzalez 2003 etc.), Liverpool English (Harris 1990), Basque
(Hualde 1991), Catalan (Hualde 1992), Gothic (Bennett 1980), Middle Korean
(Ramsey 1991), Old Turkic (Hitch 1989), Hebrew (Idsardi 1998, Graf 1999,
Koontz-Garboden 2001 etc.)
102
If fricativization and voicing of most intervocalic stops can be said to
represent a process of lenition that leads to a decrease of phonological markedness,
the treatment of the alveolar voiced stop [d], which turns into [ ], is in all
102
See also numerous other examples and references in Kirchner (1998) and Lavoie (2001).
244
likelihood a different process, although Andersen (1999) mentions it as an instance
of lenition on a par with the other ones. Moreover, Andersen regards [] as an
allophone of [d] that is the outcome of lenition in intervocalic position, but the
same author also lists the implosive stop as one of the consonants that can occur in
word-initial position, as in nt (‘bird’). An additional property that sets apart the
alveolar stops [d] and [ ] is their behavior with respect to consonant harmony (see
Rose and Walker 2004 for an analysis of consonant harmony). Due to the scarcity
of the data, we cannot go into details as to consonant harmony in Mayak, but it can
be noted, following Andersen (1999), that while other root stops trigger place of
articulation harmony in the suffix, the [d] is more permissive and allows for free
variation.
It appears that the implosive stop occupies a singular position in the
consonant inventory of Mayak and does not entirely pattern with the rest of the
stops with respect to distribution and phonological processes in which it is
involved. For these reasons, the so-called ‘lenition’ of [t] to [ ] will not be
discussed and will be left for future study.
In the following sections I will offer an optimality-theoretic account of
Mayak intervocalic fricativization.
245
3. Analysis
3.1 Relevant constraints
Since Mayak lenition is blocked in the Passive Voice, where marked phonotactic
structure is allowed, let us start by attempting to implement the Marked in the
Marked Schema.
The essential ingredients are the constraint that licenses intervocalic stops
in the Passive (LICENSE(VTV, PASS.)), the context-sensitive markedness constraint
that bans intervocalic stops (*VTV) and the faithfulness constraint that militates
for faithful preservation of continuancy (IDENT[cont]). The constraints are stated in
(157) - (159) below:
(157) LICENSE(VTV, PASS.)
Let
i. m be an occurrence of phonological structure ‘intervocalic voiceless stop
(VTV)’ in an output O
ii. γ be an occurrence of the morpho-syntactic feature(s) for a value ‘passive’
of the grammatical category of Voice
Then m in the Phonological Structure (PS) of an output O implies γ in the
Morphological Structure (MS) of same output O.
(158) *VTV ‘No intervocalic voiceless stops.’
246
(159) IDENT[cont]
103
‘IDENT[cont] ‘Let α be a segment in the input and β
its correspondent in the output; if α is [γcontinuant],
then β is also [γcontinuant].’
The activity of the contextual markedness constraint *VTV has been
acknowledged among others by Hale and Reiss (1997), Cho (2001), Kawahara
(2003), Flemming (2005). The existence of the constraint against intervocalic
voiceless stops is in line with the remarks on the articulatory markedness of vowel-
stop-vowel sequences discussed in §3.
In the analysis I will consider Active and Passive forms of the verb ‘to
drink’, the Active maa - r (‘He is drinking it.’) and the Passive maat - r (‘It is
being drunk.’). Both forms consist of a CVC stem to which a VC suffix is
attached. To observe the principle of Richness of the Base, I will consider inputs
with intervocalic stops (t ) (§3.2) and inputs with intervocalic fricatives ( ) (§3.3).
3.2. Inputs with intervocalic stops
With respect to ranking arguments, the fact that there is no spirantization in the
Passive voice indicates that IDENT[cont] dominates the constraint that bans
intervocalic stops (*VTV):
103
Although IDENT[voice] is also involved, since changes in the [voice] feature always accompany
changes in continuancy, for ease of exposition I will restrict the faithfulness constraints in the
analysis to IDENT[cont].
247
(160) Table 51 IDENT[cont] » *VTV (no lenition in the Passive)
/maat - r
Pass.
/
IDENT[cont] *VTV
a. [maa - r]
Pass.
*!
b. " [maat- r]
Pass.
*
The emergence of output (160b.) as the actual winner is due to the fact that
it satisfies the top-ranked faithfulness constraint IDENT[cont], which is violated by
its competitor (160a.), so the violation of *VTV by the former candidate becomes
immaterial.
However, in the Active voice we see lenition of intervocalic stops, which
substantiates the partial ranking in (161):
(160) Table 52 LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » IDENT[cont] (lenition in the Active)
/maat - r
Act.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) IDENT[cont]
a. " [maa - r]
Act.
*
b. [maat - r]
Act.
*!
The suboptimal candidate (161b.) contains the marked VTV sequence, but
it does not carry the morpho-syntactic features of the Passive voice, so it violates
high-ranked LICENSE(VTV, Pass.). On the other hand, the licensing constraint does
not apply to the optimal candidate (161a.), which does not contain an intervocalic
stop, so the candidate in question wins, in spite of a violation of IDENT[cont].
248
From (160) and (161) it appears that the instantiation of Marked in the
Marked Schema (162) works for the mappings /maat - r
Act.
/
→ [maa - r]
Act.
and
/maat - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
:
(162) The Marked in the Marked Schema for the Mayak Passive
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » IDENT[cont] » *VTV
Problems arise if we consider inputs that contain intervocalic fricatives or
approximants, like /maa - r
Act.
/ or /maa - r
Pass.
/, which map onto the same output
forms as above.
3.3 Inputs with intervocalic fricatives or approximants
Consider first the mapping /maa - r
Act.
/ → [/maa r]
Act.
in the Active voice:
(163) Table 53 Active: /maa - r
Act.
/ → [/maa r]
Act.
/maa - r
Act.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) IDENT[cont] *VTV
a. " [maar]
Act.
b. [maat r]
Act.
*! * *
In Tableau (163) the application of the constraint hierarchy (162) yields the
actual output (163a.), since the output satisfies all relevant constraints, while the
suboptimal candidate (163b.) violates LICENSE(VTV, PASS.).
249
The situation is different, though, for the mapping /maa - r
Pass.
/ →
[maat r]
Pass.
in the Passive voice:
(164) Table 54 Passive: /maa - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
/maa - r
Pass.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) IDENT[cont] *VTV
a. / [maat r]
Pass.
*! *
b. " [maar]
Pass.
The intended winner is the frowny face candidate (164a.) in Tableau (164).
It violates both IDENT[cont] and *VTV, as compared with the actual winner
(164b.), which satisfies all constraints.
In keeping with the principle of Richness of the Base (Prince and
Smolensky 1993/2004), the analysis should hold for any possible input, so the
account of the Mayak data that takes into consideration only the constraints in
(157) - (159) above turns out to be inadequate, as it leads to different results as a
function of the structure of the input.
3.4 Interactions with allophonic variation
This situation encountered in the previous section is not entirely unexpected, since
the general distribution of Mayak stops and fricatives or approximants is
allophonic in the sense that fricatives and approximants are generally allophonic
realizations of stops in intervocalic position.
250
In Optimality Theory, allophony is a derived property that emerges from a
particular constraint hierarchy that captures the conflict between context-free
markedness, context-sensitive markedness and faithfulness, as shown by Kager
(1999). According to Kager, allophonic variation results from the following
schema:
(165) Allophonic Variation
Contextual markedness » Context-free markedness » Faithfulness
In the particular case of Mayak, the contextual markedness constraint is
*VTV (158), and the relevant faithfulness constraint is IDENT[cont] (159). The
Marked in the Marked Schema (162) shares both these constraints with the schema
for allophonic variation (165). What is missing from the picture is the context-free
markedness constraint.
Heuristically, the context-free markedness constraint is one that bans
fricatives or approximants, and can be conveniently defined in (166):
(166) * ‘No fricatives ().’
104
104
See Lombardi (2000) for an analogous constraint against the voiceless intervocalic fricative
(* ). For work of the marked status of interdental fricatives see Gnanadesikan (1997), Ladefoged
and Maddieson (1996), Lombardi (2000), Gonzalez (2003) Kirchner (2004) etc. What is at stake
here is the markedness of the stop-vowel-stop sequence rather than the markedness of individual
segments.
251
Note that the constraint in (166) represents a particular instantiation of a
more general markedness constraint that bans fricatives/ approximants, which can
be expressed in terms of feature co-occurrence (*([+consonantal], [-continuant])).
For ease of exposition, I will continue to use the * constraint throughout the
chapter.
The particular instantiation of the Allophonic Variation in Mayak can be
stated as in (167):
(167) *VTV » * » IDENT[cont]
The ranking in (167) predicts that intervocalically no voiceless stops are
allowed, and to avoid an intervocalic stop fricativization to [ ] becomes possible,
at the cost of sacrificing faithfulness to continuancy. It is obvious that the
Allophonic Variation schema alone does not work for Mayak, as the undominated
contextual markedness constraint *VTV does not allow intervocalic stops to occur
in the Passive Voice, contrary to the observed facts.
On the other hand, amending the Marked in the Marked schema to the
effect that context-free markedness is sandwiched between the licensing constraint
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) and the faithfulness constraint IDENT[cont] yields the actual
outputs for the Mayak Active-Passive consonant alternations.
Let us examine first the mappings /maat - r
Act.
/ → [maa r]
Act.
and
252
/maat - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
. The fact that the intervocalic stop spirantizes
intervocalically in the Active voice offers a ranking argument for LICENSE(VTV,
PASS.) and the context-free markedness constraint, which bans fricatives
altogether:
(168) Table 55 LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * (lenition in the Active)
/maat - r
Act.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.)
*
a. " [maar]
Act.
*
b. [maat r]
Act.
*!
The emergence of the actual output in (168) is ensured by the domination
of * by LICENSE(VTV, PASS.). Indeed, the winning candidate (168a.) violates
only the bottom-ranked constraint, which prohibits fricatives, while satisfying the
top-ranked licensing constraint, which the loser (168b.), violates.
In the Passive voice, the constraint ranking in (169) ensures the success of
the fully faithful candidate with no spirantization:
(169) Table 56 LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * (no lenition in the Passive)
/maat - r
Pass.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.)
*
a. [maa - r]
Pass.
*!
b. " [maat - r]
Pass.
253
While the context-free markedness constraint * has been shown to be
dominated by LICENSE(VTV, PASS.), it can be noted that * dominates faithfulness
(IDENT[cont]). To see that this is the case, we need to examine the mappings
involving inputs with fricatives (/maa - r
Act.
/ → [/maa r]
Act.
and /maa - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
). Recall that the mapping /maa - r
Pass.
/ →
[maat r]
Pass.
has proven problematic for the initial Marked in the Marked Schema.
The faithful mapping in the Active (/maa - r
Act.
/ → [/maa r]
Act.
) does not
offer us a ranking argument for * and IDENT[cont]:
(170) Table 57 LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * , IDENT[cont]
/maa - r
Act.
/
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.)
*
IDENT[cont]
a. [maat r]
Act.
*! *
b. " [maar]
Act.
*
The ranking argument for * and IDENT[cont] is offered by the Passive
forms, as shown in (171):
(171) Table 58 * » IDENT[cont] (no fricatives in the Passive)
/maa - r
Pass.
/ *
IDENT[cont]
a. " [maat r]
Pass.
*
b. [maar]
Pass.
*!
254
In Tableau (171), the unlenited candidate (171a.) in the Passive wins over
the lenited one (171b.) exactly because it satisfies high-ranking * .
From Tableau (160) we already know that IDENT[cont] dominates the
context-sensitive markedness constraint *VTV. With this provision, we can state
the final constraint ranking for Mayak intervocalic stop spirantization (* should
be interpreted as a constraint that prohibits the occurrence of fricatives or
approximants, seen as continuant consonants):
(172) LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * » IDENT[cont], *VTV
The hierarchy (172) can be regarded as a modification of the Marked in the
Marked Schema (LICENSE(M,g) » FAITH » *M), which takes into account the
effects of allophonic variation by restricting pure, phonological allophony to forms
outside the grammatically marked category ‘passive’.
We can generalize the hierarchy in (172) by taking a closer look into the
nature of the constraints. Because it states a (functionally grounded) morphological
condition on the occurrence of phonological marked structure (M), the positive
licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g) can be regarded as a morphological context-
sensitive markedness constraint (M-CSM). The next constraint on the hierarchy is
*, which bans fricatives and approximants irrespective of context, so it represents
an instance of context-free markedness constraint (CFM). Next, IDENT[cont] is an
255
instance of faithfulness constraint (FAITH). Bottom-ranked *VTV is a phonological
context-sensitive markedness constraint (P-CSM).
The generalized schema that emerges from the analysis is given in (173):
(173) M-CSM » CFM » FAITH, P-CSM
Note that the sub-hierarchy (M-CSM » CFM » FAITH) of schema (166)
mirrors Kager’s allophony ranking, but with morphological sensitivity. The
schema above encapsulates the workings of grammatical (morphological)
markedness as the driving force for the phonological asymmetry noted in Mayak.
The analysis essentially rests on the assumption that Active and Passive
morphology are similar to a large extent (affixes are VC in both), so the
asymmetry stems from the special ability of the grammatically marked Passive to
license a marked phonological configuration, an ability that we attribute to
considerations of economy in the more frequent, less marked Active.
Before we conclude the discussion of Mayak, let us consider a couple of
residual issues.
4. Residual issues
4.1 The representation of the Passive suffix
Throughout the analysis of Mayak lenition it has been assumed that intervocalic
stops arise in the Passive Voice due to suffixation of a VC stop to a CVC root, and
256
the blocking of the process of spirantization is prima facie surprising, given its
quasi-allophonic character.
For example, for the passive verb form maat - r (‘it is being eaten’) the
voice affix - r has been tacitly assumed to be underlyingly (and superficially) VC,
under which circumstances resistance to lenition is problematic and calls for the
application of the modified Marked in the Marked schema, as in the preceding
section.
A closer examination of other passive forms in Mayak seems to suggest
that the passive morpheme is actually consonant-initial underlying (/tr/):
(174) Possible evidence for a consonant-initial passive suffix
a) g p- r gw- -t r ‘It is being eaten’
b) ip-ir ip-i-t ir ‘It is being shot’
The examples in (174) show that the so-called ‘underived’ passive forms
gp- r and ip-ir display the expected VC suffix, while the ‘derived’ passives
gw- -t r and ip-i-t ir contain a CVC passive suffix t ir/ t r (the vowel intervening
between the root and the suffix may be a stem-building element). While the
derived passives in (174) do not raise problems for the analysis (the intervocalic
dental stop fails to lenite, as expected in the Passive), they may seem to offer
evidence for a Passive suffix that starts with a dental stop. An alternative analysis
257
would have to be entertained, involving an opaque interaction of t -deletion and
faithful parsing of the final consonant of the stem in underived passives.
This solution, attractive as it may seem, is faced with a number of
difficulties. The essential problem, noted by Andersen (1999), is that positing a
passive suffix that begins with /t / after a root-final consonant would imply the
existence of a rule of coronal harmony, whose consequence is the spreading of the
place of articulation of a non-liquid to a following dental stop. The prediction of
such a rule is that we should not find [t ] after any other consonants than liquids.
This prediction is not borne out in a number of words, such as girin t i
(‘hippopotamus’). The sequence [n t ] is problematic, on the grounds that a dental
consonant like [n ] should be analyzed, according to the phonology of Mayak, as
the outcome of an underlying alveolar /n/ followed by a dental stop. If the rule of
coronal harmony is active, the expected output of /girint i/ is *[girinti], rather than
the actual output girin t i.
A possible answer could rest in the observation that most words that
behave like girin t i are loans from Arabic, so they should be treated separately from
the words of native stock. Yet the dental voiced stop [d ] is found to occur after
nasals in native words, for example in cases of plural affixation with the suffix
[din], as in j m-d in (‘monkeys’). It seems therefore that the consonant-initial
Passive suffix hypothesis is hard to defend, so we have to assume that at least
258
synchronically one should entertain the view that the underlying form of the
Passive morpheme is indeed VC.
As the vast majority of Active suffixes are vowel-initial as well, the
analysis of the Active-Passive asymmetry in Mayak as motivated by a functionally
grounded licensing asymmetry between the grammatical categories is borne out.
4.2 An alternative analysis: Positional Faithfulness
Another issue for analysis of the Mayak data is the potential to account for the
facts without resorting to the positional markedness mechanism represented by
positive licensing. An alternative analysis that could be in principle entertained for
Mayak is one based on Positional Faithfulness (PF).
Let us assume a Positional Faithfulness schema of the type IDENT[cont]
Pass.
» *VTV » IDENT[cont], as an instantiation of the general PF schema FAITH
α
» M »
FAITH already discussed in Chapter 3 §2.1
Without entering into details, as we can see from Tableaux (175) and (176)
below, the PF schema works for the inputs with intervocalic stops discussed in
§3.2:
(175) Table 59 Passive: /maat - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
/maat - r
Pass.
/
IDENT[cont]
Pass.
*VTV IDENT[cont]
a. [maa r]
Pass.
*! *
b. " [maat r]
Pass.
*
259
(176) Table 60 Active: /maat - r
Act.
/ → [maa - r]
Act.
/maat - r
Act.
/
IDENT[cont]
Pass.
*VTV IDENT[cont]
a. " [maa - r]
Act.
*
b. [maat - r]
Act.
*!
Consider now the mappings with underlying intervocalic fricatives. In this
case we run into the same problem as in the application of the MIM schema: the
PF account works for the Active (Tableau (177)), but not in the Passive (Tableau
(178)):
(177) Table 61 Active: /maa - r
Act.
/ → [maa r]
Act.
/maa - r
Act.
/
IDENT[cont]
Pass.
*VTV IDENT[cont]
a. " [maar]
Act.
b. [maat r]
Act.
*! *
(178) Table 62 Passive: /maa - r
Pass.
/ → [maat r]
Pass.
/maa - r
Pass.
/
IDENT[cont]
Pass.
*VTV IDENT[cont]
a. / [maat r]
Pass.
*! * *
b. " [maar]
Pass.
As we can see in Tableau (178), the actual output (178a.), indicated by the
frowny face symbol ( / ) violates all relevant constraints, allowing candidate
(178b.), which satisfies all of them, to win.
260
Recall that in the case of the MIM schema the analysis was rescued by
taking into consideration context-free a markedness constraint (* ) ranked below
LICENSE(VTV, PASS.), as in (179):
(179) LICENSE(VTV, PASS.) » * » IDENT[cont], *VTV
The question that arises is whether the PF analysis can be rescued as well.
As we are dealing with quasi-allophonic variation, the context-free markedness
constraint against fricatives (* ) is a necessary ingredient of the analysis. If we
examine Tableau (178), the only means by which to allow the actual output
[maat r]
Pass.
to emerge as the winner is to assume that * dominates
IDENT[cont]
Pass
. This is tantamount to * being undominated in Mayak, which
would mean that no fricatives are allowed in the language. Nevertheless, this result
is empirically inadequate, because we do see outputs that contain fricatives in
Mayak.
Finally, a discussion of alternative approaches to Mayak morpho-
phonology would remain incomplete without briefly mentioning yet another
conceivable approach, represented by Output-Output (O-O) Correspondence
(Benua 1997/2000 and others). O-O Correspondence could in principle be said to
operate between the Passive and the uninflected stem (to which the voice affix is
attached), resulting in underapplication of lenition in the Passive.
261
However, the O-O Correspondence account does not seem to be a viable
alternative. This can be seen if we examine again the forms in (174), repeated
below:
(180)
a) g p- r gw- -t r ‘It is being eaten’
b) ip-ir ip-i-t ir ‘It is being shot’
The forms in the second column of (180) represent the so-called ‘derived
passive’, discussed in relation to the Passive suffix in §4.1 above. The failure of
the O-O account is due to the resistance to lenition that [t ] displays in the suffix,
not in the base of affixation.
The Mayak case is therefore best accounted for by a modification of the
MIM schema that takes into consideration allophonic variation effects, as we have
seen in §3.4. Both the Positional Faithfulness analysis and the O-O
Correspondence account fail to capture the whole range of attested outputs.
5. Summary
Mayak lenition offers a fertile ground for testing the applicability of the Marked in
the Marked hypothesis and schema in the particular case of voice inflection. As we
have seen, Mayak has a productive process of intervocalic stop fricativization,
262
which, however, fails to apply in the Passive voice, whereas the Active, whose
morphological markers are similar, regularly undergoes it.
The process of spirantization in Mayak is allophonic to a large extent
(fricatives are generally allophones of stops in intervocalic position). However, the
process of intervocalic spirantization is unexpectedly suspended in the Passive
voice giving rise to phonotactically marked stop-vowel-stop sequences, while in
the Active spirantization occurs regularly, although the phonological make-up of
the two forms is relatively similar. I have argued that adding context-free
markedness constraints to the Marked in the Marked schema so as to take into
consideration allophonic variation can account for this behavior.
Finally, residual issues were addressed, notably the possibility to
implement a Positional Faithfulness analysis of the Mayak data. The failure of the
PF analysis due to the interaction with allophony demonstrates that the positional
markedness approach represented by the MIM schema is not only empirically
adequate, but also necessary.
263
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The main claim defended in this dissertation is that grammatical or inflectional
markedness, as encoded in grammatical markedness hierarchies, intersects with
phonological markedness. As we have seen, under otherwise similar phonological
conditions, outputs inflected for a marked grammatical category are characterized
by equal or greater phonological markedness than outputs inflected for the
unmarked category, a correlation dubbed the Marked in the Marked (MIM)
generalization.
In Chapter 1 I introduced the research topic of the dissertation. Chapter 2
discussed the content of the notion ‘grammatical markedness’ and ‘phonological
markedness’, respectively, introduced the MIM generalization and approached the
issue of functional grounding of MIM effects. As regards grammatical
markedness, the role of frequency of occurrence was highlighted as the main
criterion. With respect to phonological markedness, for the purpose of this
dissertation the main criteria were considered to be articulatory, perceptual and
structural complexity and occurrence in phonological inventories across languages.
In Chapter 3 I discussed the way in which MIM effects can be modeled in
Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004) and I proposed a class of
formal licensing constraints LICENSE(M,g) which are violated whenever marked a
given phonological structure M in the Phonological Structure of an output occurs
264
outside a marked member g of grammatical category G or in uninflected outputs.
MIM effects were shown to emerge from the constraint hierarchy LICENSE(M,g) »
FAITH » *M (the MIM Schema). Filters on possible licensing constraints were
discussed and the factorial typology of the MIM Schema was laid out. The upshot
of the factorial typology is the prediction, supported by the case studies presented
in the dissertation, that given two members g
1
and g
2
of grammatical category G
such that g
2
> g
1
in point of grammatical markedness, marked phonological
structure M can occur either in both g
1
and g
2
or only in g
2
and not in g
1
, or in
neither of the two.
The introduction of licensing constraints LICENSE(M,g) is tantamount to
enriching the inventory of optimality-theoretic constraints (CON) with a class of
functionally grounded constraints. The necessity of positing such licensing
constraints becomes clear as we examine alternatives to positional markedness.
Specifically, although Positional Faithfulness could be used to account for some
simpler cases of MIM, albeit less economically (Old Saxon, Chapter 4), the
necessity of positive licensing becomes obvious for cases that involve more
complex interactions with other phonological processes (as in Mayak, Chapter 6).
The positing of the mechanism of licensing of marked phonological
structure in marked grammatical categories represents an enrichment of the class
of functional licensors (recall that the licensors are the morpho-syntactic features
of the marked category, which is in turn ultimately singled out by a functional
factor such as frequency of occurrence). This represents a theoretical move in line
265
with Steriade (1995a), Casali (1997), Majors (1998), Beckman (1998/1999), Alber
(2001) Smith (2002/2005), Walker (2004, 2005) etc.
Chapters 4,5 and 6 are three case studies proposed as illustrations of the
MIM generalization. In Chapter 4 I discuss marked metrical structure (uneven
trochees) in the marked Oblique case in Old Saxon. A type of marked segmental
structure (consonants with secondary articulation) in the Plural of nominals in
Romanian is discussed in Chapter 5, where extensions to dialects are also made.
Chapter 6 deals with marked phonotactic structure (intervocalic voiceless stops) in
the Passive voice in Mayak. All these three cases lend empirical support to the
MIM hypothesis.
In this chapter, intended as a conclusion to the dissertation, I focus on the
empirical coverage and predictions of the MIM generalization (§)1 and point to
issues for further research (§2).
1. Empirical coverage and predictions
In this thesis I put forth the Marked in the Marked (MIM) generalization,
according to which under phonological similarity of inflectional coding, marked
grammatical categories are more (or equally) prone to sponsor marked
phonological structure than unmarked categories. The similarity condition was
introduced in the statement of MIM in order to control the activity of the
phonological factors which may contribute to the asymmetry between marked and
unmarked categories. Under such circumstances, the asymmetry is attributable to
266
the workings of functional forces represented by the frequency of occurrence of
inflected forms, which determines their status on a grammatical markedness scale.
The three case studies presented in Chapters 4-6 all conform to the
phonological similarity condition. In Old Saxon (Chapter 4), both the marked
Oblique Case and the unmarked Direct Case have the same underlying
phonological exponent (/-u/). In Romanian (Chapter 5), Number suffixes are both
high vowels (/-u/ for the Singular and /-i/ for the Plural) and they display relatively
similar behavior with respect to their avoidance/retention in word final position.
Finally, in Mayak (Chapter 6), both the (unmarked) Active Voice and the (marked)
Passive Voice are built by attaching a VC suffix to a consonant-final stem.
The similarity condition was included in the statement of MIM for
epistemological reasons. We need to know that there are MIM cases which satisfy
it, in order for us to know that licensing constraints LICENSE(M,g) exist. Once
evidence for licensing constraints has been produced, the similarity condition can
be dropped. In what follows I will discuss some other cases which we can now
apply licensing constraints to.
One such case is represented by the behavior of the vowel sequences that
arise from article prefixation in the Singular and Plural in Italian (Saltarelli and
Calvano 1979), already alluded to in Chapter 3 §4. The feminine Italian definite
article is la in the Singular, and when attached to a vowel-initial noun the final
vocalic segment of the determiner undergoes deletion, in avoidance of hiatus. In
267
the Plural, the determiner is le, but its final vowel is retained and hiatus arises.
This behavior is illustrated in (181), which repeats the data in (53):
(181) The behavior of article-noun sequences in Italian
a. Vowel deletion in the Singular
/la
Def.
+entita/ → [len.ti.tá]
Sg. Def.
‘the entity’
b. Vowel retention in the Plural
/le
Def.
+entita/ → [le.en.ti.tá]
Pl. Def.
‘the entities’
The licensing analysis can be applied to the Italian data, in which case the
marked phonological structure tolerated in the (marked) Plural, but disallowed in
the (unmarked) Singular is ‘hiatus’, or a VV sequence. The markedness constraint
against the marked phonological structure is *VV. The relevant licensing
constraint is LICENSE(VV, PLURAL), as already shown in §4 of Chapter 3. The
Number forms in question are similar in that both of them potentially involve
hiatus due to a VV sequence which emerges from article attachment to a vowel-
initial noun stem.
Analyses along the lines of MIM can also be envisioned for more complex
situations. Such is the case of nasal deletion/retention in Number formation in
Tswana (Coetzee 2001). In Tswana there are a number of inflectional prefixes
used in the formation of Singular and Plural forms that have in common the fact
that underlyingly they either consist of a nasal segment unspecified for place of
268
articulation (/N/, Class 5 Singular) or of a sequence of segments ending in such a
consonant (/diN/, Class 5 and 6 Plural). When these affixes attach to a consonant-
initial stem, the nasal is either deleted or parsed as a syllable peak, but realization
as a syllable peak is a last resort to ensure word minimality (Tswana words are
minimally bisyllabic). The interesting fact is that while Singular forms parse the
nasal as a syllable peak only to ensure word minimality, Plural forms unexpectedly
parse it in the same way even when minimality is not at stake. This can be seen for
monosyllabic roots in (182):
(182) Root Sg. (N-) Pl. (diN-)
pa m.pa di.m.pa
ku .ku di..ku
tlo n.tlo di.n.tlo
The relevant marked phonological structure is the syllable peak represented
by a nasal (PK/[nas]), against which militates the markedness constraint
*PK/[nas].The relevant licensing constraint is LICENSE (PK/[nas],PLURAL).
Another case which may be added to the repertoire of MIM phenomena is
provided by the Tiwi language. In Tiwi (Northern Australian isolate), a marked
grammatical category (Past Tense) allows marked phonotactic structure (hiatus)
which it prohibits in the unmarked category (Present) or in the language in general.
In this language, the status and treatment of heterosyllabic vowel sequences (V.V)
269
apparently depend on the affiliation to a grammatical category. In Tiwi, hiatus is
generally avoided through a number of mechanisms including vowel deletion, but
it occurs in the grammatically marked Past Tense, whereas the unmarked non-Past
(Present) tense resolves it, resorting to vowel deletion (Osborne 1974, Lee 1987).
For example, in the Non-Past (a cover term for tense values that relate to
the present, like the Present Tense proper or the Present Perfect), the affix vowel
deletes in front of another vowel, for example, before vowel-initial stems (183a.).
The Non-Past vowel surfaces, though, in front of consonant-initial morphemes
(183b.):
(183) The behavior of the Non-Past affix with respect to hiatus
a) Vowel-final deletion before a vowel-initial morpheme
nN + p + apa → nm-p-apa
you np eat ‘You eat.’
aN + p + akupauli → am-p-akupauli
she np go back ‘She goes back.’
b) Vowel-final retention before a consonant-initial morpheme
nN + p +
105
+ kin ani → nm-p --kin ani
you np lie ‘You are lying.’
105
The element appears invariably with consonant-initial roots, intervening between them and
many CV affixes. It can also occur in conjunction with vowel-initial morphemes. It has no precise
morphological affiliation and can be sometimes seen as a stem-building formative used to build an
‘augmented’ root, sometimes as a temporal affix without a precise value (Osborne 1974). Since it is
a CV attached to a consonant-initial root, its presence does not have any impact on the phonotactics
of prefix-stem interactions.
270
The behavior of Past Tense CV affixes is different in that the affix final
vowel is retained irrespective of the initial segment of the following morpheme,
which in turn fails to undergo vowel deletion:
(184) The Non-Past affix always retains its vowel
a) Consonant-initial morpheme
pu + t + + papuk → pu-t - -papuk
they p rub ‘They rubbed.’
b) Vowel-initial morpheme
N + t + apa → n-tu-apa
we p eat ‘We ate.’
To summarize, the distribution of the tense affixes in Tiwi is:
(185) Table 63 The distribution of Tiwi tense prefixes
C-stem V-stem
Non-Past (np)
p-
p-
Past (p)
t -
tu-
The marked phonological structure involved is hiatus (VV), as in the case
of Italian, but this time the marked grammatical category is the Past Tense
106
. The
analysis of Tiwi will employ the licensing constraint LICENSE(VV, PAST) and the
106
We note that there is no unambiguous evidence for the similarity condition in Tiwi, due to the
possibility of having affix representations like /p
np
/ in the Non-Past and /tu
p
/ in the Past, and to the
different phonological behavior of schwa and high vowels in the language. As mentioned above,
once we have proved that licensing constraints do exist in CON, we can relax the statement of MIM
and deal with cases where the similarity condition may not be met.
271
context-free markedness constraint *VV. Italian and Tiwi illustrate the use of
licensing constraints for the same marked phonological structure M in the
Phonological Structure of outputs inflected for marked values of different
grammatical categories (Plural and Past Tense, respectively).
There are alternative accounts for some of these cases, but those may have
problems of their own. For example, in his analysis of Tswana Coetzee employs a
complex array of constraints to account for it, invoking considerations of
extrametricality, stress assignment and morpheme realization. He argues that the
behavior of nasal peaks in Tswana represents an instance of ‘emergence of the
marked’. In my opinion it is worth attempting an analysis of the Tswana data in
terms of licensing, which may prove simpler and also superior in point of
explanatory power. This is due to the fact that the licensing account subsumes the
phonological asymmetry between categories on a markedness scale to a single
general principle and thus provide an explanation for the ‘emergence of the
marked’ phenomenon.
In the dissertation I discussed only applications of the MIM generalization
to morphological patterns of concatenation, in particular affixation. Specifically,
Old Saxon and Romanian are instances of suffixation, and Mayak is an instance of
prefixation. The potential cases of Italian, Tswana and Tiwi all illustrate
prefixation. For the empirical coverage and predictions of the theory it is important
to establish whether there are limitations or advantages of applying licensing
accounts to other kinds of morphological processes.
272
In the area of concatenative morphology, MIM may not have applicability
to reduplication. There are two reasons for this situation. First, cases where two or
more members of the same grammatical category are realized by reduplication do
not seem to be attested. This means that the similarity condition is virtually
impossible to meet. This is not a principled difficulty, as we have seen that the
similarity condition is no longer indispensable once licensing constraints have
been shown to exist. The second reason for the inapplicability of MIM in
reduplication has to do with the property of reduplication to create unmarked
phonological structure (McCarthy and Prince 1994), so even if systems existed
with two or more reduplicated members of G, there may not be relevant marked
phonological structure to assess.
In the area of non-concatenative morphology too, MIM may have
interesting applications. Consider, for illustration, umlaut phenomena, commonly
encountered in Germanic, in German in particular. In the morphology of German,
the Plural of certain nouns is formed by fronting the first vowel of the nominal
stem (186a.), a process which is sometimes accompanied by suffix attachment
(186b.), as shown below, where forms are given orthographically:
(186) German Plural formation by umlauting
Singular Plural Gloss Alternation
a. Mutter Mütter ‘mother(s)’ u ~ y
Tochter Töchter ‘daughter(s)’ o ~ ø
273
b. Gast Gäst-e ‘guest(s) a ~
Fuss Füss-e ‘foot/feet’ u ~ y
Such processes are a good testing ground for MIM effects. The similarity
condition is met: the base stem and the umlauted one are both bare stems
107
. If we
compare the Singular and Plural forms above, we note that the umlauting process
often involves an increase in phonological markedness in the affected vowel. This
assertion is supported, for instance, by the alternations u ~ y and o ~ ø, whose
second, umlauted element is a front rounded vowel, cross-linguistically a marked
segment. There are two possible scenarios which can be entertained. First, assume
that the stem contains underlying marked structure M (represented, for
convenience, by the co-occurrence of the frontness and rounding features) and that
the structure is ‘repaired’ in the Singular and turned into an unmarked back,
unrounded vowel. I will briefly sketch an analysis along the lines of MIM. The
relevant constraints are LICENSE([-back, +round], PLURAL), faithfulness as identity
of backness/frontness specifications in input and output (FAITH) and the
markedness constraint against front, rounded vowels is *[-back, +round]. As
shown in Tableau (187), the MIM ranking accounts for formation of the Singular:
107
Note, however, that alternative analyses are also available in which umlaut is reduced to
concatenative morphology (see the observation in Chapter 2 according to which most, if not all
instances of non-concatenative morphology are instances of concealed affixation). Specifically,
umlaut may be considered a process of affixation of an autosegmental morpheme.
274
(187) Table 64 Singular: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back,
+round]
/y/
Sg.
LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL)FAITH *[-back, +round]
a. " [u]
Sg.
*
b. [y]
Sg.
*! *
In (187), the umlauted candidate (187b.) violates the licensing constraint,
since it contains the marked phonological structure [-back, +round] in its
Phonological Structure, but carries the ‘singular’ specification in the
Morphological Structure. Thus (187b.) wins, in spite of a violation of faithfulness.
The umlauted Plural is also predicted by the MIM ranking:
(188) Table 65 Plural: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back,
+round]
/y/
Pl.
LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL)FAITH *[-back, +round]
a. " [y]
Pl.
*
b. [u]
Pl.
*!
The success of the winner (188a.) is ensured by satisfaction of faithfulness,
which is violated by the suboptimal candidate (188b.). Thus the MIM Schema
predicts the possibility of repairing underlying marked phonological structure in
the unmarked category and its preservation in the marked category.
The second relevant scenario to be considered is the one in which the stem
contains underlying unmarked structure and marked structure is created in outputs
275
inflected for the marked grammatical category and is preserved in the unmarked
one. This time the MIM ranking fails to yield the expected output in the Plural:
(189) Table 66 Plural: LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » FAITH » *[-back,
+round] (failed ranking)
/u/
Pl.
LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL)FAITH *[-back, +round]
a. " [u]
Pl.
b. / [y]
Pl.
* *
The failure of the MIM Schema is due to the fact that the fully faithful candidate
(189a.) wins over the actual output (189b.), symbolized by a frowny face, due to a
fatal violation of faithfulness incurred by the latter.
Returning to predictions, recall that (187) and (188) were proposed to
account for the behavior of Singular and Plural forms with respect to umlauting in
German. However, the fact that LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) is undominated
predicts that front, rounded vowels are not allowed in the language outside the
Plural. However, in German there are Singular forms which contain front, rounded
vowels, so the proposed analysis cannot be generalized to all German forms. The
bottom line is that MIM predicts such a language to exist.
German umlauting is also useful in other predictions of rankings involving
licensing constraints. Under the ranking FAITH » LICENSE([-back,
+round],PLURAL), *[-back, +round] (the ‘full contrast’ case in the factorial
typology of the MIM Schema, Chapter 3 §5.2) we predict languages where marked
276
phonological structure occurs in both the Singular and the Plural as long as it is
underlying.
We can split general faithfulness into identity constraints for roundedness
(IDENT[rd]) and backness (IDENT[bk]. If IDENT[rd] is ranked above licensing and
IDENT[bk] below it we obtain the constraint hierarchy in (190):
(190) IDENT[rd]»LICENSE([-back, +round],PLURAL) » IDENT[bk] »*[-back, +round]
To test the predictions of hierarchy (190), consider, for ease of exposition,
the case of the back rounded vowel [u] alternating via umlaut with the front
rounded vowel [y]. Due to the rankings in (190), stems which have underlying /u/
will yield outputs which have [u] both in the Singular and in the Plural, as shown
in the tableau below:
(191) Table 67 Stems with underlying /u/ IDENT[rd] » LICENSE(y,PLURAL) »
»IDENT[bk] » *y
A. /u/
Sg.
IDENT[rd] LICENSE(y,PLURAL)IDENT[bk] *y
a. " [u]
Sg.
b. [y]
Sg.
*! * *
B. /u/
Pl.
IDENT[rd] LICENSE(y,PLURAL)IDENT[bk] *y
a. " [u]
Pl.
b. [y]
Pl.
*! *
If we now consider stems with underlying /y/, (190) will yield outputs
which have [u] in the Singular and [y] in the Plural, as shown in Tableau (192):
277
(192) Table 68 Stems with underlying /y/ IDENT[rd] » LICENSE(y,PLURAL) »
»IDENT[bk] » *y
A. /y/
Sg.
IDENT[rd] LICENSE(y,PLURAL)IDENT[bk] *y
a. " [u]
Sg.
*
b. [y]
Sg.
*! *
B. /y/
Pl.
IDENT[rd] LICENSE(y,PLURAL)IDENT[bk] *y
a. [u]
Pl.
*!
b. " [y]
Pl.
*
In sum, Hierarchy (190) predicts a language with two kinds of nouns,
nouns which do not contain front, rounded vowels in either the Singular and the
Plural (191) and nouns which have front rounded vowels in the Plural, but not in
the Singular (192). Such a language (‘German prime’) differs from German in that
German has a third category of nouns, those which have front rounded vowels in
both the Singular and the Plural.
Note also that the formation of German Plurals by umlauting is sometimes
characterized by additional suffixation (the examples in (186b.) above), a situation
known as ‘double morphemic exponence, DME’. DME represents a challenge to
Morpheme Realization analyses, such as Kurisu’s (2001) Morpheme Realization
Theory (RMT). RMT does not predict such systems
108
, but the licensing approach
advocated in this thesis can.
Throughout the dissertation, only instances involving a single type of
marked phonological structure were discussed. One may also envision situations
108
To deal with the problem posed by DME Kurisu proposes an account which uses the complex
machinery of Sympathy Theory (McCarthy 1999). However, the RMT approach per se is
questionable as it leads to predictions which are not supported empirically (Topintzi 2003).
278
where two or more instances of marked phonological structure are involved. Does
MIM predict such cases? In its current formulation, the MIM schema does not
exclude them, but it does not specifically address them either.
Let us explore the hypothetical case of two kinds of marked phonological
structure (M and M’) and one licensing constraint LICENSE(M,g), which is violated
if M occurs outside g, in particular in the unmarked member g’ of grammatical
category G. For example, M can be an uneven trochee (HL), M’, a high vowel
syllable peak, g the Oblique Case and g’ the Direct Case, as in Old Saxon (Chapter
4). Two trivial cases present themselves: the one in which M and M’ can occur in
both g and g’ (‘full contrast’, if faithfulness dominates markedness) and one in
which M and M’ occur neither in g or nor in g’ (‘lack of variation’, if context-free
markedness constraints against M and M’ are undominated). There are a few other,
non-trivial cases which can be predicted.
For example, if only LICENSE(M,g) is considered, it may be the case that M
occurs only in g, and M’, in both g and g’, or in neither, or only in g or only in g’,
as shown below:
(193) Table 69 The distribution of M and M’
M M’
only in g g, g’
neither g nor g’
g
g’
279
What is not predicted is the occurrence of M in the unmarked value g’ of
the grammatical category without M being also able to occur in the marked
member g. The Old Saxon case instantiates the situation where M (the uneven
trochee) occurs only in g (Oblique), and M’ (the high vowel syllable peak), both in
g and g’ (Direct).
We can also define a ‘conjoint’ licensing constraint LICENSE(M&M’,g) to
the effect that outputs are penalized only when they contain both M and M’ and
are not inflected for g. Such a scenario rules out the possibility of M and M’
occurring together only in g’, but not in g. The separate occurrence of M or M’ in
the two values of the grammatical category or even in the same member of the
grammatical category is not precluded.
For example, to use the same illustration as above, M may be an uneven
trochee and M’, a high vowel syllable peak. Our ‘conjoint’ licensing constraint
analysis predicts that there are no instances of outputs inflected for g’ which
contain both uneven trochees and high vowel syllable peaks. It is also predicted
that uneven trochees and high vowel syllable peaks may occur separately in either
g or g’ or in both.
It should be noted that all the scenarios above have implications on the
structure of the substantive filter on licensing constraints and also that they are
based on the assumption that M and M’ are independent (for example, that the
footing process is not sensitive to the nature of syllable peaks). All these
predictions await testing on actual cases.
280
Most of the cases discussed in the dissertation are instances of two-way
grammatical categories (Singular and Plural for Number, Active and Passive for
Voice, Present and Past for Tense). There are, however, more complex
morphological systems which involve n-way contrasts between the values of a
given grammatical category. Such a system is Old Saxon (Chapter 4), for which an
analysis was laid out that relies on grouping of four Case values (Nominative,
Accusative, Dative, Instrumental) into two (Direct and Oblique). This grouping
was based on the commonalities between the members of the Case category (in
§4.2.1 we saw that the grouping was also necessary to make the analysis work).
This issue too has implications for the nature of the filter on licensing constraints.
2. Issues for further research
The present dissertation represents a first attempt to investigate the connection
between grammatical markedness and the phonology. Its main finding is that
marked phonological structure is confined to outputs inflected for marked
grammatical categories to a greater or equal extent than in the unmarked categories
(the MIM generalization)
As concerns the mechanism that underlies MIM phenomena, it was
claimed that it is grounded in principles of economy, phonetics and speech
processing. However, as we have seen, not all aspects of the functional grounding
mechanism assumed for MIM are clear – while from the perspective of speech
production the advantages of MIM are obvious, it is for further research to uncover
281
and clarify the implication of MIM effects especially for speech perception and
language acquisition. Also, the approach adopted in this thesis is a synchronic one,
so the diachronic implications of MIM effects have been largely left unexplored.
Issues such as the way in which MIM effects emerge in the history of languages
and the extent to which they can impact language change represent challenges
upon which future research needs to shed light.
In this chapter I explored the applicability of a licensing-based analysis to
other cases, including non-concatenative morphology and systems where more
than one type of marked phonological structure is licensed in an output.
Predictions were made as to such situations. It is a desideratum for future research
to test those predictions and also to investigate the applicability of the analysis to
other linguistic systems, for example for other grammatical categories and/or
marked phonological structures than those exemplified in this dissertation.
Finally, in investigating the correlation between grammatical markedness
and phonological properties we started by looking at grammatical markedness
hierarchies which were to a large extent taken as a given (although the functional
factors behind them, like frequency of occurrence, were highlighted). If MIM
phenomena are active cross-linguistically, one may expect the study of
phonological asymmetries in markedness between inflected outputs to be able to
give us information regarding the status of the respective grammatical categories.
This could potentially lead to the formulation of new grammatical markedness
scales. It may also be the case that certain asymmetries in the phonological
282
behavior of lexical categories (notably, between nouns/adjectives and verbs
109
) can
be correlated with similar functional factors as the asymmetries that hold between
forms inflected for grammatical categories on a markedness hierarchy. This issue
too merits further investigation.
109
See Smith (1999, 2001) and Iscrulescu (2004b) for work on phonological asymmetries between
lexical classes.
283
REFERENCES
Aissen, Judith. 1999/2001. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673-711. Reprinted in
Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.) Optimality-
Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 61-96.
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435-483.
Alber, Birgit. 1997. Quantity Sensitivity as the Result of Constraint Interaction. In
Geert Booij and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Phonology in Progress -
Progress in Phonology. HIL Phonology Papers III. The Hague: Holland
Academic Press. 1-45.
Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximizing first positions. In C. Féry, A. D. Green and R. van
de Vijver (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5. Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 12.
1-19.
Albright, Adam. 2004. Sub-optimal Paradigms in Yiddish. Proceedings of
WCCFL 23. 1-14.
Alderete, John. 1995/2001. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. [ROA-94]. [Published
in John McCarthy (ed.), Optimality Theory in phonology: Selected
readings, Oxford: Blackwell. 215-227.]
Alderete, John. 1999/2001. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality
Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
[Published in 2001 by Garland, New York]
Andersen, Torben. 1988. Consonant alternation in the verbal morphology of Päri.
Afrika und Übersee 71. 63-113.
Andersen, Torben. 1999. Consonant Alternation and Verbal Morphology in Mayak
(Northern Burun). Afrika und Übersee 82. 65-95.
Andersen, Torben. 2000. Number Inflection in Mayak (Northern Burun). In Rainer
Vossen, Angelika Mietzner and Antje Meissner (eds.) Mehl als nur
Wörte... Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65 Geburstag von Franz Rottland.
Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 28-43.
284
Andersen, Henning. 2001. Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In
Henning Andersen (ed.) Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress
(Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 219). Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 19-57.
Ann, Jean. 2006. Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign
Language Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example. Washington, D. C.:
Gallaudet University Press.
Archangeli, Diana; Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Archangeli, Diana; Langendoen, D. Terence. 1997. Optimality Theory – An
Overview. Oxford: Blackwell.
Aslin, R. N.; Saffran, J. R.; Newport, E. L. 1998. Computation of conditional
probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9.
321-324.
Atkins, Sue; Clear, Jeremy; Ostler, Nicholas. 1992. Corpus Design Criteria.
Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(1). 1-16.
Augerot, James E. 1974. Romanian phonology: a generative phonological sketch
of the core vocabulary of standard Romanian. University of Idaho: Idaho
Research Foundation, Inc.
Bailyn, John Frederick; Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Markedness and Allomorphy in
Distributed Morphology: Exemplification from Russian. Talk presented at
the SUNY-CUNY-NYU Miniconference.
Bakovi ć, Eric. 2000. Harmony, Dominance and Control. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Rutgers University.
Balota, D.A.; Chumbley, J.I. 1985. The locus of word-frequency effects in the
pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? Journal of Memory
and Language 24. 89-106.
Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness: the evaluative superstructure of
language. Albany: The State University of New York.
Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
285
Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona
vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1-46.
Beckman, Jill. 1998/1999. Positional Faithfulness. Ph.D. Dissertation, Amherst,
MA: University of Massachusetts. [Published in 1999 by Garland
Publishing]
Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 1998. La palatalisation en somali. Linguistique Africaine
21. 5-52.
Bennett, William Holmes. 1980. An Introduction to the Gothic Language. New
York: The Modern Language Association.
Benua, Laura. 1997/2000. Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations
between Words. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
[ROA-259]. [Published as Phonological Relations between Words. New
York: Garland. 2000].
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1996. Stress and quantity in Old and early Middle
English: evidence for an Optimality-Theoretic model of sound change.
Ms., University of Manchester.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1999. Opacity: evidence from West Germanic
Gemination. Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics
Association of Great Britain, Manchester.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2001. Underlying nonmoraic consonants,
faithfulness, and sympathy. Ms., University of Manchester.
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Using Register-Diversified Corpora for General
Language Studies. Computational Linguistics 19 (2). 219-242.
Billerey, Roger. 2000. Optimality and sound change: Old French codas. Paper
presented at the 75
th
Annual LSA Meeting, Chicago.
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blevins, Juliette. 1997. Rules in Optimality Theory: two case studies. In Iggy Roca
(ed.), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. New York: Oxford
University Press. 227-60.
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
286
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without Paradigms: Remarks on Williams
1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 53-85.
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic
Graphics.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance.
Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Breban, Nicolae. 2002. Bunavestire [Annunciation]. Bucharest: Paralela 45.
Brunner, Jana. 2003. Economy in Number Marking: Structural Coding and
Phonological Length. Ms., Berlin: Humboldt University.
Bybee, Joan. 1994. A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional
perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4). 285-305.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and
form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bye, Patrik A. 2001. Virtual Phonology: Rule Sandwiching and Multiple Opacity
in North Saami. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Byrd, Dani. 1992. Perception of assimilation in consonant clusters: A gestural
model. Phonetica 49. 1-24.
Campbell, Alistair 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caragiu-Marioteanu, Matilda. 1968. Fono-morfologie aromana – studiu de
dialectologie structurala. [Aromanian Phono-morphology – a Study in
Structuralist Dialectology]. Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing
House.
Caragiu-Marioteanu, Matilda. 1975. Dialectologie romana: curs. [A Course in
Romanian Dialectology]. Bucharest: Editura Didactica si pedagogica.
Casali, Roderic. 1997. Vowel Elision in Hiatus Contexts: Which Vowel Goes?
Language 73(3). 493-533.
Casali, Roderic. 1998. Resolving Hiatus. New York: Garland.
287
Cathey, James E. 2000. Old Saxon. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Chitoran, Ioana 1996. Prominence vs. Rhythm: The Predictability of Stress in
Romanian. In Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Romance
languages: Selected papers from the 25
th
Linguistic Symposium on
Romance Languages (LSRL XXV) Seattle, 2-4 March 1995. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 47-58.
Chitoran, Ioana 2002. The Phonology of Romanian: A Constraint-Based
Approach. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1998. Language Change as Reranking of Constraints. In
Hogg, R. M. and L. van Bergen (eds.). Historical Linguistics 1995. Vol.2.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-62.
Cho, Hyeonkwan 2001. On phonological opacity in English word stress.
Chungnam National University Studies in Phonetics, Phonology,
Morphology 7.2. 423-448.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Norbert
Hornstein and David Lightfoot (eds.) Explanation in Linguistics: The
logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman. 123-146.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua
Lectures. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Miller, George 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of
natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush and E. Galanter (eds.),
Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, II. New York: John Wiley and
Sons. 269-321.
Chomsky, Noam; Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York:
Harper and Row.
288
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2.
223-250.
Clements, George N. 1988. The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core
Syllabification. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 2.
1-68.
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In
John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman (eds.) Papers in laboratory
phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 283-333.
Clements, George N. 2004. Features and Sound Inventories. Talk presented at the
Symposium on Phonological Theory: Representations and Architecture
CUNY, February 22-24, 2004.
Coetzee, Andries W. 2001. Nasal-only syllables in Tswana. In Graham Horwood
and Se-Kyung Kim (eds.) RuLing Papers 2: Working Papers of Rutgers
University. New Brunswick: Department of Linguistics, Rutgers
University. 1-20.
Contreras, Heles. 1977. Spanish Epenthesis and Stress. Working Papers in
Linguistics 3. University of Washington, Seattle.
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2000. Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perception-based
approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Second edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2000. Length neutralization and vowel lengthening in
Orlec Čakavian. In Tracy Holloway King and Irina A. Sekerina (eds.)
Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the
Philadelphia meeting 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
152-167.
Crosswhite, Catherine. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. New York
and London: Routledge.
Crystal, David. 1985. A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2nd edition. New
York: Basil Blackwell.
289
Culicover, Peter W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Culicover, Peter W. 1984. Learnability explanations and processing explanations.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 77-104.
Curtin, Suzanne. 2002. Representational Richness in Phonological Development.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Deo, Ashwini; Sharma, Devyani. 2005. Typological Variation in the Ergative
Morphology of Indo-Aryan Languages. Ms., Stanford University.
Dewhurst, Stephen A.; Hitch, Graham J.; Barry, Christopher. 1998. Separate
Effects of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Recognition and
Recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 24(2). 284-298.
Donegan, Patricia. 1978. On the Natural Phonology of Vowels. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Ohio State University.
Donegan, Patricia; Stampe, David. 1979. The study of Natural Phonology. In D.
Dinnsen (ed.) Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press. 126-173.
Drellishak, Scott. 2005. Coordination and Processing. To appear in University of
Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (2005).
Dresher, Elan B.; Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in
Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22(2). 252–86.
Dresher, Elan B. 2003. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology.Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics 20. 47-62.
Dresher, Elan B.; Piggott, Glyne; Rice, Keren. 1994. Contrast in phonology:
overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13:1. iii-xvii.
Dresher, Elan ; Rice, Keren. 1993. Complexity in phonological representations.
Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12:2. i-vi.
Dresher, Elan B.; van der Hulst, Harry. 1998. Head-Dependent Asymmetries in
Phonology: Visibility and Complexity. Phonology 15(3). 317-352.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology.
Journal of Linguistics 21. 321-337.
290
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. Typological aspects of Natural Morphology. Wiener
linguistische Gazette. 35-36.
Dressler, Wolfgang; Kilani-Schoch, M.; Klampfer, S. 2002. How Does a Child
Detect Morphology? Evidence from Production. Trends in Linguistics.
Studies and Monographs 151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 391-425.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. Some mutual challenges. On-line Proceedings of the
Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Catania 2003.
van Driem, George. 1987. A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1989. Large Linguistic Areas and Language Sampling. Studies
in Language 13-2. 257-292.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language
68(1). 81-138.
Dyck, Carrie 1993. Complexity and the nature of metaphony. Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics 12:2. 19-41.
Dyck, Carrie. 1995. Constraining the Phonology-Phonetics Interface: with
Exemplification from Spanish and Italian Dialects. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Elías-Ulloa, José. 2004. Quantity (In)sensitivity and Underlying Glottal Stop
Deletion in Capanahua. In Tania Granadillo, Meghan O'Donnell and
Stacey Oberly (eds.) Coyote Papers XIII - Special Volume Dedicated to the
Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Tucson: University of Arizona. 15-
30.
Engstrand, Olle. 1997. Why are clicks so exclusive? Papers from FONETIK-97,
The Ninth Swedish Phonetics Conference, Umeå May 28-30, 1997.
Reports from the Department of Phonetics, Umeå University (PHONUM)
4. 191-194.
Fabricius, Anne H. 1998. A Comparative Survey of Reduplication in Australian
Languages. München: LINCOM Europa.
Feng, Guanjun (Bella). 2006. Morpheme Recognition in Prosodic Morphology.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1991. Frequenz und Kognition – Frequenz und
Markiertheit. Folia Linguistica 25(3-4). 361-394.
291
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form.
In Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.) Frequency and the Emergence of
Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 431-449.
Fidelholtz, James L. 1975. Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. CLS
11.
Fikkert, Paula; Levelt, Clara C. To appear. How does place fall into place? The
lexicon and emergent constraints in the developing phonological grammar'.
In P. Avery, B. Elan Dresher and K. Rice (eds.) Contrast in phonology:
Perception and Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton.
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory Representations in Phonology. Ph.D.
Dissertation, UCLA.
Flemming, Edward. 2005. Speech perception in phonology. In David Pisoni and
Robert Remez (eds.) The Handbook of Speech Perception. London:
Blackwell. 156-182.
Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Gallée, Johan Hendrik. 1910. Altsächsische Grammatik. Second
revised edition.
Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Gardiner, J. M. 1988. Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory &
Cognition. 16. 309-313.
Gess, Randall. 2001. On re-ranking and explanatory adequacy in a constraint-
based theory of phonological change. Ms., University of Utah.
Ghini, Mirco. 1993. -formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics 12:2. 41-79.
Ghini, Mirco. 2001. Asymmetries in the Phonology of Miogliola. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Glanzer, M.; Eisenreich, S. L. 1979. Structure and search of the internal lexicon.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 381-398.
292
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 1996. The Acquisition of Phonology as the Promotion of
Faithfulness Constraints: A case study in onset selection. Paper presented
at WCHSALT, OTS, Utrecht University.
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 1997. Phonology with Ternary Scales, Ph.D.
Dissertation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. [ROA-195]
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Golston, Chris; Wiese, Richard. 1996. Zero morphology and constraint interaction:
subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. In G. Booij and J. van Marle
(eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 143-159.
Gonzalez, Carolina. 2003. The Effect of Stress and Foot Structure on Consonantal
Processes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Goodsitt, J. V.; Morgan, J. L.; Kuhl, P. K. 1993. Perceptual strategies in prelingual
speech segmentation. Journal of Child Language 20. 229-252.
Gordon, B. 1983. Lexical access and lexical decision: mechanisms of frequency
sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18. 24-44.
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving Economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [ROA-610]
Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Minimal Reduplication as a Paradigm Uniformity Effect.
In B. Schmeiser, V. Chand, A. Kelleher and A. Rodriguez (eds.)
Proceedings of WCCFL 23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 101-114.
Graf, Dafna. 1999. Metrical Structure of Modern Hebrew Nominals. MA paper,
Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf.
Green, Anthony Dubach. 2001. The promotion of the unmarked: representing
sound change in Optimality Theory. Paper presented at the 10
th
International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, University of
Manchester.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966a. Language Universals, with Special Reference to
Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966b. Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J.H. Greenberg, (ed.),
Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73-113.
293
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.)
Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. 41-
58.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal Projections and Optimality. Ms., Rutgers
University.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, Heads and Optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28.
373-422.
Gurevich, Naomi. 2001. A Critique of Markedness-Based Theories in Phonology.
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 31.2. 89-114.
Hale, Mark; Reiss, Charles. 1997. Grammar Optimization: The simultaneous
acquisition of constraint ranking and a lexicon. Ms., Concordia University,
Montréal.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language 59 (4). 781-819.
Hall, Beatrice; Hall, R. M. R. 1996. From cognate set to etymology in the
reconstruction of Proto-Nilotic. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere 45. Cologne:
Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln. 151-175.
Halle, Moris; Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of
Inflection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.) The View from
Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.:
The MIT Press.
Hamann, Silke. 2003. The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Utrecht University, Holland.
Hamilton, Philip. 1996. Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics
of Australian aboriginal languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Toronto.
Hammond, Michael. 1995. There is no lexicon! Ms., University of Arizona.
Harley, Heidi. 2004. The Importance of Impoverishment. Talk presented at the
Phi-Workshop, Montreal.
Harris, James. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Harris, James. 1980. Nonconcatenative Morphology and Spanish Plurals. Journal
of Linguistic Research 1. 15-31.
294
Harris, John. 1990. Segmental Complexity and Phonological Government.
Phonology 7(2). 255-300.
Harris, Zellig S. 1955. From phoneme to morpheme. Language 31. 190-222.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 18. 180–205.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Functional and formal explanation in linguistics.
Handout, Düsseldorf Summer School.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. Against iconicity and markedness. Ms., Stanford
University.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Ms.,
Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie.
Hatzivassiloglou, Vasileios; McKeown, Kathleen. 1995. A quantitative evaluation
of linguistic tests for the automatic prediction of semantic markedness. In
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass. 97-204.
Havens, L. L.; Foote, W. E. 1963. The effect of competition on visual duration
threshold and its independence of stimulus frequency. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 65. 6-11.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic
Inquiry 21. 223-261.
Hawkins. John A. 1992a. Heads, parsing, and word order universals. In Greville
Corbett, Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan (eds.) Heads in
Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins. John A. 1992b. Syntactic weight versus information structure
in word order variation. In J. Jacobs (ed.) Informationsstruktur
und Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 196-219.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
295
Hawkins, John A. 2003. Efficiency and complexity in grammars: Three general
principles. In John Moore and Maria Polinsky (eds.) The nature of
explanation in linguistic theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 121-
152.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In M. Niepukuj et
al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 429-446.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago and London: Chicago
University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of Optimality
Theory and inductive grounding. In M. Darnell et al. (eds.), Formalism and
Functionalism in Linguistics, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243-285.
Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early
stages. In René Kager, Joe Pater and Wim Zonneveld, Wim, (eds.), Fixing
Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, Bruce; Kirchner, Robert; Steriade, Donca (eds.) 2004. Phonetically-Based
Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, J. R.; Clark, H. H. 1970. Experiments in the segmentation of an artificial
speech analog. In J. R. Hayes (ed.) Cognition and the development of
language. New York: Wiley. 221-234.
Hendricks, P. 1989. Palatalization and labialization as morphemes in Chaha. Ms.,
Yale University.
Heukstra, Teun; Kooij, Jan G. 1988. The innateness hypothesis. In John A.
Hawkins (ed.) Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 31-55.
Hickok, Gregory. 2001. Functional Anatomy of Speech Perception and Speech
Production: Psycholinguistic Implications. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 30(3). 225-235.
Hickok, Gregory; Poeppel, David. 2000. Towards a functional neuroanatomy of
speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Science 4. 131-138.
296
Hitch, Douglas. 1989. Old Turkic b' and p'. In K. Sagaster and H. Einer (eds.)
Religious and Lay Symbolism in the Altaic World and Other Papers,
Proceedings of the 27
th
Meeting of the Permanent International Altaist
Conference.
Hoffman, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions
grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data — and the importance of
intuition. In Hans Lindquist and Christian Mair (eds.) Corpus Approaches
to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171-210.
Hogg, Richard M. 1997. The morphology and dialect of Old English bisyllabic
nouns. In Raymond Hickey and Stanis ław Puppel (eds.) Language History
and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60
th
Birthday, Volume 1. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 113-126.
Hogg, Richard M. 2000. On the (non-)existence of High Vowel Deletion. In A.
Lahiri (ed.) Markedness and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. 353-376.
Holthausen, Ferdinand. 1921. Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. Second edition.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universtitätsbuchhandlung.
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of
morphophonological change. In W. Christie (ed.) Current Progress in
Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 96-105.
Hopper, Paul J. 1992. Grammaticalization. In William Bright, William (ed.)
International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Howe, Darin; Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2001. Patterns and timing of glottalization.
Phonology 18:45-80.
Hualde, Juan. 1991. Basque Phonology. London: Routledge.
Hualde, Juan. 1992. Catalan. London: Routledge.
d’Hulst, Yves. 2006. Romance Plurals. Lingua 116. 1303-1329.
Hume, Elizabeth. 2004. Deconstructing markedness. Berkeley Linguistics Society
30.
297
Hume, Elizabeth; Johnson, Keith; Seo, Minsun, Tserdanelis, Georgios; Winters,
Steve. 1999. A Cross-linguistic Study of Stop Place Perception.
Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
2069-2072.
Idsardi, William. 1998. Tiberian Hebrew Spirantization and Phonological
Derivations. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1). 37-73.
Inkelas, Sharon 1994. The consequences of optimization on underspecification.
Ms., UC Berkeley. [ROA-40].
Iscrulescu, Cristian. 2004a. Realize-morpheme: one constraint, or a family? In
Brian Agbayani et al. (eds.) Proceedings of WECOL 2003, California State
University, Fresno. 61-71.
Iscrulescu, Cristian. 2004b. Cross-category phonological contrast as a result of
morphological marking. Paper presented at WECOL 2004, University of
Southern California.
Itô, Junko. 1986/1988. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. [Published as Syllable Theory
in Prosodic Phonology. New York: Garland.]
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 7. 217-60.
Itô, Junko; Armin Mester, Jaye Padgett 1995. Licensing and underspecification in
Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 571-614.
Itô, Junko and Armin Mester 1996. Rendaku I: Constraint Conjunction and the
OCP. Lecture handout, the Kobe Phonology Forum, Kobe, Japan. [ROA-
144].
Jacobs, Heike 1995. Optimality Theory and sound change. Proceedings of NELS
25. [ROA-129]
Jakobson, Roman. 1932/1984. Structure of the Russian verb. In Linda R. Waugh
and Morris Halle (eds.) Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931-1981
(Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 106). The Hague: Mouton. 1-14.
(Originally published as ‘Zur Structur des russischen Verbums’, Charistera
Guglielmo Mathesio, 74-84, Prague, 1932)
298
Jakobson, Roman. 1939/1984. Zero sign. In Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle
(eds.) Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931-1981 (Janua Linguarum,
Series Maior 106). The Hague: Mouton. 151-160. [Originally published as
‘Signe zéro’. In Mélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally, Geneva,
1939]
Jakobson, Roman; Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague:
Mouton.
Johnson, C. D. 1975. Phonological channels in Chaha. Afroasiatic Linguistics 2.2.
1-12.
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and Articulatory Factors in Place Assimilation: An
Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
Jun, Jongho. 2001. Positional Markedness vs. Positional Faithfulness. Eoneohag
[Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea] 29. 57-84.
Jun, Jongho 2004. Place assimilation. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner and Donca
Steriade (eds.) Phonetically-based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 58-87.
Kager, René. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 11. 381-432.
Kager, René. 1995. Review of Hayes 1995. Phonology 12. 437-464.
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kager, René. To appear. Lexical irregularity and the typology of contrast. In
Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas (eds.) The Structure of Words.
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2003. Root-controlled Fusion in Zoque: Root-Faith and
Neutralization Avoidance. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
[ROA-599]
Kaye, Jonathan; Lowenstamm, Jean; Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. The internal
structure of phonological representations: a theory of Charm and
Government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 305-328.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,
Mass.: Blackwell.
299
Kerswill, Paul; Williams, Ann. 2002. ‘Salience’ as an explanatory factor in
language change: evidence from dialect leveling in urban England. In M.C.
Jones and E. Esch (eds.) Language Change: the interplay of external,
internal and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 81-110.
Kikuchi, Seiichiro. 2005. The Emergence of The Unmarked in Galician Plural
Formation. In On'in Kenkyu [Phonological Studies] 8. 17-24.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 421-441.
Kiparsky, Paul 2004. Fenno-Swedish quantity: contrast in stratal OT. Ms.,
Stanford University.
Kirby, Simon. 1994. Adaptive explanations for language universals.
Sprachtypologie und Universalieforschung (STUF) 47(3). 186-210.
Kirchner, Robert. 1996. Synchronic Chain Shifts in Optimality Theory. Linguistic
Inquiry 27. 341-350.
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. Contrastiveness and Faithfulness. Phonology 14(1). 83-
111.
Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition. Ph. D.
Dissertation, UCLA. [ROA-276].
Kirchner, Robert. 2000. Geminate inalterability and lenition. Language 76(1). 509-
545.
Kirchner, Robert. 2004. Consonant Lenition. In Bruce Hayes, Donca Steriade and
Robert Kirchner (eds.) Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 313-346.
Kitto, Catherine; de Lacy, Paul 1999. A correspondence theory of epenthetic
quality. In Catherine Kitto and Carolyn Smallwood (eds.) Proceedings of
AFLA (Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association) VI. Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics. 181-200.
Kochetov, Alexei. 2001/2002. Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic
patterns: A case of contrastive palatalization. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Toronto. [Published as Production, Perception and Emergent
Phonotactic Patterns. New York and London: Routledge.]
Köhler, Oswin. 1955. Geschichte der Erforschung der nilotischen Sprachen.
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
300
Kohler, K.J. 1990. Segmental reduction in connected speech: Phonological facts
and phonetic explanations. In William Hardcastle and Alain Marchal (eds.)
Speech Production and Speech Modeling. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 69-92.
Kohler, K.J. 1991. The phonetics/phonology issue in the study of articulatory
reduction. Phonetica 48. 180-192.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2001. Tiberian Hebrew Spirantization and Related
Phenomena in Stratal OT. [ROA-607]
Ku čera, Henry; Monroe, George K. 1968. A Comparative Quantitative Phonology
of Russian, Czech, and German. New York: American Elsevier.
Ku čera, Henry; Francis, Nelson W. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present Day
American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The Phonology of Morpheme Realization, Ph.D.
Dissertation. Santa Cruz: University of California. [ROA-490]
de Lacy, Paul. 2001. Markedness in prominent positions. In Ora Matushansky,
Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam
Szczegielniak (eds.) HUMIT 2000, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40.
Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 53-66. [ROA-432]
de Lacy, Paul 2002. The Formal Expression of Markedness. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [ROA-542]
Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A Course in Phonetics. 2
nd
edition. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Ladefoged, Peter; Maddieson, Ian. 1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Landauer, T.K.; Streeter, L.A. 1973. Structural differences between common and
rare words: failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word
recognition, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12. 119-131.
Lavoie, Lisa M. 2001. Consonant strength: phonological patterns and phonetic
manifestations. New York: Garland.
301
Lee, Jae-Young. 2000. On the Root-Affix Faithfulness Metaconstraint in English
Phonology. Ms., Seoul National University.
Lee, Jennifer R. 1987. Tiwi today: a study of language change in a contact
situation. Pacific Linguistics C, 96. Canberra: Australian National
University.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lewis, Anthony. 2001. Weakening of intervocalic /p,t,k/ in two Spanish dialects.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Lewis, Geoffrey N. 2000. Turkish Grammar. New York and London: Oxford
University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of New Hampshire.
Liljencrants, Johan; Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel
systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Language 48. 839-862.
Lindblom, Björn; Maddieson, Ian. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems.
In Larry Hyman and C. Li (eds.) Language, Speech and Mind: Studies in
Honor of Victoria A. Fromkin. London: Routledge. 62-78.
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In John Ohala and
Jeri Jaeger (eds.) Experimental Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H and H
theory. In Hardcastle, W. and Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech Production and
Speech Modeling. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 403-439.
Lindblom, Björn. 1990a. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H
theory. In William Hardcastle and Alain Marchal (eds.) Speech Production
and Speech Modeling. Netherlands: Kluwer. 403-439.
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in
Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 267-302.
Lombardi, Linda. 2000. Second language data and constraints on Manner:
explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. [ROA-418]
302
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific
alternations in Optimality Theory. In Linda Lombardi (ed.), Segmental
Phonology in Optimality Theory. Constraints and Representations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13-45.
Luce, P. A. 1986. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Research on
Speech Perception Progress Report, No. 6. Bloomington: Indiana
University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.
MacBride, Alexander. 2004. A Constraint-Based Approach to Morphology. Ph.D.
Dissertation, UCLA.
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Maddieson, Ian; Precoda, Karen. 1989. Updating UPSID. UCLA WPP 74. 104-
111.
Majors, Tivoli. 1998. Stress-Dependent Vowel Harmony: Phonological Analysis
and Phonetic Explanation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Austin: University of Texas.
Ma ńczak W. 1980. Frequenz und Sprachwandel. In H. Lüdtke (ed.),
Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin/ New
York: Walter de Gruyter. 37-79.
Marquardt T.P., Reinhart J.B., Peterson H.A. 1979. Markedness analysis of
phonemic substitution errors in apraxia of speech. J. Commun. Disord.
12(6). 481-94.
Marslen-Wilson, William. 1990. Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical
access. In G. Altmann (ed.) Cognitive Models of speech processing.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 148-172.
Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio. 1991. Sobre la naturaleza fonética de los alófonos de
/b,d,g/ en español y sus distintas denominaciones. Verba 18. 235-253.
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
[Translated as Mayerthaler, Willi. 1988. Naturalness in morphology. Ann
Arbor: Karoma.]
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. System-independent morphological naturalness. In
Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Mayerthaler, Willi; Panagl, Oswald; Wurzel;
Wolfgang U. (eds.) Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. (Studies in
Language Companion Series, 10.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25-58.
303
McCall, Betsy. 1999. Vowel lengthening in a moraic trochee system: stress in
Ancient Egyptian. Ms., Indiana University.
McCarthy, John. 1983. Consonantal Morphology in the Chaha Verb. In M.
Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat (eds.) Proceedings of the West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Linguistics Association.
McCarthy, John. 1999. Sympathy and Phonological Opacity. Phonology 16. 331-
399.
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John J.; Prince, Alan 1986. Prosodic Morphology. Ms., Amherst:
University of Massachusetts.
McCarthy, John; Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized Alignment. In G. Booij and J.
van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 79-
153.
McCarthy, John; Prince, Alan. 1994. The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality
in Prosodic Morphology. In M. Gonzlez (ed.), Proceedings of the 24th
meeting of NELS. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 333-379. [ROA-13]
McCarthy, J., and Prince, A. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In
Beckman, Jill; Dickey, Laura Walsh and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.),
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in Optimality
Theory. 249-384.
McCartney, Steven. 2002. Resolved—not Germanic—feet in Old English. Ms.,
Austin: University of Texas.
Mellander, Evan (2001). Quantitative Processes in Trochaic Systems. In Karine
Megerdoomian and Leora Anne Bar-el (eds.) Proceedings of the Twentieth
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press. 414-427.
Mellander, Evan. 2003. (HL)-creating processes in a theory of foot structure. The
Linguistic Review 20. 243–280.
Mester, Armin; Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature Predictability and Underspecification:
Palatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics. Language 65. 258-293.
304
Metsala, J. 1997. An examination of word frequency and neighbourhood density in
the development of spoken word recognition. Memory and Cognition 25.
47-56.
Miller, George; Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In R.
D. Luce, R. R. Bush and E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical
Psychology, II. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 419-491.
Miller, George; Isard, S. 1964. Free recall of self-embedded English sentences.
Information and Control 7. 202-303.
Monaghan, Padraic; Chater, Nick; Christiansen, Morten H. 2005. The differential
role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation.
Cognition 96. 143-182.
Morén, Bruce Timothy 1997. Markedness and Faithfulness Constraints on the
Association of Moras: The Dependency between Vowel Length and
Consonant Weight. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.
Morén, Bruce Timothy 1999. Distinctiveness, Coercion and Sonority: A Unified
Theory of Weight. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College
Park. [ROA-346]
Moreton, Elliott 2004. Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In John J.
McCarthy (ed.), Optimality Theory in Phonology. 141-164.
Morin, Annick. 2005. Anti-Markedness Language Change in Gascon and Québec
French. Paper presented at the University of Tromsø.
Morton, J.; Long, J. 1976. Effect of word transitional probability on phoneme
identification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15. 43-51.
Motley, M. T.; Baars, B. J. 1975. Encoding sensitivities to phonological
markedness and transitional probability: Evidence from spoonerisms.
Human Communication Research 1. 353-361.
Nasu, Akio. 2003. Reduplicants and Prefixes in Japanese Onomatopoeia. In T.
Honma, M. Okazaki, T. Tabata and S. Tanaka (eds.) A New Century of
Phonology and Phonological Theory - A Festschrift for Professor Shosuke
Haraguchi on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
210-221.
305
Nespor, Marina; Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris
Nevins, Andrew. 2006. Dual is Still more Marked than Plural. Colloquium Talk,
Syracuse University.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ní Chiosáin, Máire; Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Markedness, Segment Realization, and
Locality in Spreading. In Linda Lombardi (ed.) Segmental Phonology in
Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118-156.
Nooteboom, Sieb. 1981. Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words:
beginnings vs. endings. Journal of Phonetics 9. 407-424.
Noske, Manuela. 2000. ATR harmony in Turkana: A case of Faith-Suffix » Faith-
Root. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 771-812.
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological
Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Oh, Young-Il. 2002. Historical Sound Change in Optimality Theory. SNU Working
Papers in English Language and Linguistics 1, 127-141.
Ohala, John. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In Peter
MacNeilage (ed.) The Production of Speech. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ohala, John J. 1990. The phonetics and phonology of assimilation. In J. Kingston
and M. Beckman (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the
Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
258-275.
Osborne, C. R. 1974. The Tiwi Language. Australian Aboriginal Studies No. 55.
Linguistic Series No. 21. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies.
Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Elizabeth
Hume and Keith Johnson, (eds.) The role of speech perception in
phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 187-218.
Padgett, Jaye. 2003a. Contrast and Post-Velar Fronting in Russian. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 39-87.
306
Padgett, Jaye. 2003b. The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In
Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and language change. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Press. 307-335.
Padgett, Jaye; Zygis, Marzena. 2003. The evolution of sibilants in Polish and
Russian. In T. A. Hall and Silke Hamann (eds.) ZAS papers in linguistics
volume 32. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. 155-174.
Peinovich, Michael P. 1979. Old English noun morphology: a diachronic study.
Amsterdam - New York: North-Holland Pub. Co.
Phillips, Betty. 1980. Old English an ~ on: A new appraisal. Journal of English
Linguistics 14. 20-3.
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2000. The phonetic grounding of phonology. Les Cahiers de
l’ICP, Bulletin de la Communication Parlé 5. 7-23.
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. The Voice of Markedness. Talk presented at the IAP
Workshop on markedness and the lexicon, MIT.
Pisoni, D. B.; Nusbaum, H. C.; Luce, P. A.; Slowiaczek, L. M. 1985. Speech
perception, word recognition, and the structure of the lexicon. Speech
Communication 4. 75-95.
Postal, Paul. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative Consequences of Rhythmic Organization. In M.
Ziolkowski, M. Noske & K. Deaton (eds.) Papers from the Chicago
Linguistic Society 26:2. 355-398.
Prince, Alan; Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint
interaction in generative grammar. London: Blackwell [Originally
published as Technical Report CU-CS-696-93, Department of Computer
Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Technical Report TR-2,
Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
NJ, April 1993]
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral Vowels in Optimality Theory: A
Comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue
canadienne de linguistique 41(4). 295-347.
Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos.
307
Ramsey, Robert S. 1991. Proto-Korean and the Origin of Korean Accent. In
William G. Boltz and Michael C. Shapiro (eds.) Asian Historical
Phonology. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Revithiadou, Anthi. 2004. The Iambic/Trochaic Law revisited - Lengthening and
shortening in trochaic systems. In Boban Arsenijevic et al. (eds.), Leiden
Papers in Linguistics 1.1. 37-62.
Rice, Curt. 1992. Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: parametric
extensions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Austin: University of Texas.
Rice, Keren. 2003. Featural markedness in phonology: variation. In Lisa Cheng
and Rint Sybesma (eds.) The Second Glot International State-of-the Article
Book. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 389-429.
Rice, Keren; Peter Avery. 1995. Variability in a deterministic model of language
acquisition: A theory of segmental elaboration. In J. Archibald (ed.)
Phonological acquisition and phonological theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. 23-42.
Rice, Keren; Avery, Peter. 2004. The representational residue: the role of contrast
in phonology. Paper presented at the 12th Manchester Phonology Meeting,
University of Manchester.
Ringen, Catherine O.; Vago, Robert. 1998. Hungarian vowel harmony in
Optimality Theory. Phonology 15. 393-416.
Rose, Sharon. 1994. Palatalization, underspecification, and plane conflation in
Chaha. In Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 101-116.
Rose, Sharon. 1997. Theoretical Issues in Comparative Ethio-Semitic Phonology
and Morphology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Montreal: McGill University.
Rose, Sharon; Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as
correspondence. Language 80. 475-531.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation,
MIT.
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
308
Rubach, Jerzy. 2002. An Overview of Palatalization-i. Studies in Phonetics,
Phonology and Morphology 8. 169-186.
Russell, Paul. 1995. Introduction to the Celtic Languages. New York: Longman.
Russell, Kevin. 1999. MOT: Sketch of an OT approach to morphology. Ms.,
University of Manitoba.
Rusu, Grigore. 1983. Structura fonologica a graiurilor dacoromane. [The
Phonological Structure of Daco-Romanian Dialects.] Bucharest: Editura
Stiintifica si Enciclopedica.
Saeed, John Ibrahim. 1993. Somali Reference Grammar. Kensington, MD:
Dunwoody Press.
Saffran, J.R.; Aslin, R.N.; Newport, E.L. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month old
infants. Science 274. 1926-1928.
Saffran, J.R.; Newport, E.L.; Aslin, R.N.; Tunick, R.A.; Barrueco, S. 1997.
Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of
your ear. Psychological Science 8. 101-105.
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986/1990. The Representation of Features and Relations in
Non-Linear Phonology. Ph. D., MIT. [Published as The Representation of
Features and Relations in Non-Linear Phonology. New York, Garland]
Saltarelli, Mario. 1970. Spanish Plural Formation: Apocope or Epenthesis?
Language 46 (1). 89-96.
Saltarelli, Mario 2001. The Realization of Number in Italian and Spanish. In J.
Herschensohn, E. Mallén and K. Zagona (eds.) Features and Interfaces in
Romance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 239-254.
Saltarelli, Mario; Calvano, William. 1979. The Morphological Measure of
Phonological Rules. Lingua 48. 1-14.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1992. Universal Constraints and Morphological
Gemination: A Crosslinguistic Study. Ms., Brandeis University.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1993. A Unified Analysis of Crosslinguistic
Morphological Gemination. CONSOLE Proceedings.
309
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916/1972. Cours de linguistique générale. [Course in
General Linguistics, English translation by Roy Harris]. La Salle, Illinois:
Open Court Classics.
Schane, Sanford A. 1984. The fundamentals of Particle Phonology. Phonology 1.
129-155.
Scott, Mike. 1996. Wordsmith 4.1. Software developed for Oxford University
Press.
Segalowitz, Sidney J.; Lane, Korri C. 2000. Lexical Access of Function versus
Content Words. Brain and Language 75. 376-389.
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress.
Linguistic Inquiry 11. 563-605.
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. On the Major Class features and Syllable Theory. In M.
Aronoff and R.T. Oehrle (eds.), Language Sound Structure: Studies in
Phonology Dedicated to Morris Halle by his Students. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press. 107-136.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Surface restrictions in the distribution of lexical
contrasts: The role for root faithfulness. Ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Shi, Rushen; Morgan, James L.; Allopena, Paul. 1998. Phonological and acoustic
bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Journal of Child Language, 25. 169-201.
Sievers, Eduard. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie. (Bibliothek
indogermanischen Grammatiken 1) Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel.
Smith, Jennifer L. 1999. Noun faithfulness and accent in Fukuoka Japanese. In
Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest (eds.),
Proceedings of WCCFL XVIII. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 519-531.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2001. Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Robert
Kirchner, Joe Pater, and Wolf Wikely (eds.), Papers in Experimental and
Theoretical Linguistics 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and
Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 61-72.
310
Smith, Jennifer. 2002/2005. Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions.
New York: Routledge. Originally published as Phonological Augmentation
in Prominent Positions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Amherst: University of
Massachusetts.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2004a. Functional grounding inside the phonology: Evidence
from positional augmentation. Paper presented at GLOW 2004.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2004b. Making constraints positional: toward a compositional
model of CON. Lingua 114 (2004). 1433-1464.
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the Structure of the Constraint Component Con of UG.
Talk handout, UCLA [ROA-86].
Stampe, David. 1973. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Stemberger, J. P.; MacWhinney, B. 1986. Frequency and the storage of regularly
inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14. 17-26.
Steriade, Donca. 1984. Glides and Vowels in Romanian. Berkeley Linguistics
Society 10, 47-64.
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Positional Neutralization. Talk presented at North Eastern
Linguistics Society 24, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Steriade, Donca. 1995a. Underspecification and markedness. In John Goldsmith
(ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Blackwell. 114-74.
Steriade, Donca. 1995b. Neutralization and the expression of contrast. Ms., UCLA.
Steriade, Donca. 1995c. Positional neutralization. Ms., UCLA.
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal
neutralization. Ms., UCLA.
Steriade, Donca. 2001. The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: the P-map and its
consequences for constraint organization. Ms., UCLA.
Stonham, John T. 1994. Combinatorial Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Svartvik, Jan. 1990. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description
and Research. Lund Studies in English 82. Lund: Lund University Press.
311
Swadesh, Morris. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Tesar, Bruce; Paul Smolensky. 1993. The Learnability of Optimality Theory:
An Algorithm and Some Basic Complexity Results. [ROA-2]
Tesar, Bruce; Paul Smolensky. 1996. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Rutgers
Optimality Archive [ROA-110]
Tesar, Bruce; Smolensky, Paul. 1998. Learning Optimality-Theoretic grammars.
Lingua 106. 161-196.
Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2004. Root-restricted Markedness and Morpho-
Phonological Domains. Talk presented at the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto
Phonology Workshop, University of Ottawa.
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and General Markedness. Language 58(4).
832-849.
Topintzi, Nina. 2003. Issues of locality and morphologically induced non-identity
in the N. Karanga assertive and non-assertive patterns. In Ad Neeleman
and Reiko Vermeulen (eds.) UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 327-
354.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj. 1931. Die phonologischen Systeme. [The Phonological
Systems] Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 96–116.
Trubetzkoy, Nicholas. 1939/1969. Principles of phonology. (Translation of
Grundzüge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939). Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Uehara, Keiko. 2003. Center Embedding and Nominative Repetition in Japanese
Sentence Processing. Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New
York.
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1996/2001. Patterns of Reduplication in Lushootseed. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published as Patterns
of Reduplication in Lushootseed New York: Garland.]
Ussishkin, Adam. 2000. Root-and-Pattern Morphology Without Roots or Patterns.
In M. Hirotani, A.Coetzee, N. Hall, J.-Y. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the
Northeastern Linguistics Society [NELS] 30. 655-670
312
Ussishkin, Adam; Wedel, Andrew. 2002. Neighborhood Density and the Root-
Affix Distinction. In M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern
Linguistics Society [NELS] 32. 539-549.
Vasiliu, Emanuel 1965. Fonologia limbii române [The Phonology of Romanian].
Bucharest: Editura Stiintifica.
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. CLS
10: Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology. 346-374.
Vijayakrishnan, K.G. 2003. Weakening Processes in the Optimality Framework. In
Jeroen van de Weijer, Vincent J. van Heuven and Harry van der Hulst
(eds.) The Phonological Spectrum. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 241-255.
Vitevitch, Michael S. 1997. The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms.
Language and Speech 40(3). 211-228.
Vogel, Irene Barrie. 1977. The syllable in phonological theory, with special
reference to Italian. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Walker, Rachel 2000a. Nasalization, Neutral Segments and Opacity Effects. New
York: Garland.
Walker, Rachel 2000b. Nasal reduplication in Mbe affixation. Phonology 17.
65-115.
Walker, Rachel. 2001a. Round licensing, harmony, and bisyllabic triggers in
Altaic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 827-878.
Walker, Rachel. 2001b. Positional markedness in vowel harmony. In Caroline
Féry, Antony Dubach Green and Ruben van de Vijver (eds.), Proceedings
of HILP 5, Linguistics in Potsdam 12. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
212-232.
Walker, Rachel. 2004. Vowel feature licensing at a distance: Evidence from
Northern Spanish language varieties. In Vineeta Chand et al. (eds.)
Proceedings of WCCFL 23. 787-800.
Walker, Rachel. 2005. Weak triggers in vowel harmony. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 23. 917-989.
313
Walker, Rachel; Feng, Guanjun (Bella). 2004. A ternary model of morphology-
phonology correspondence. In Vineeta Chand et al. (eds.) Proceedings of
WCCFL 23. 773-786.
Wang, Hsu Samuel; Wu, Jui-Chun. 2001. The Effect of Vowel Duration on the
Perception of Postvocalic Voiced/ Voiceless Consonants. Concentric:
Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 27(2). 35-52.
Werner, Otmar. 1989. Sprachökonomie und Natürlichkeit im Bereich der
Morphologie. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
Kommunikationsforschung 42: 34-47.
Willerman, Raquel. 1994. The Phonetics of Pronouns: Articulatory Bases of
Markedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’.
Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245-274.
Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Case patterns. In Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw,
Sten Vikner (eds.) Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press. 509- 543.
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1998. On markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 24.1. 53-71.
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort.
Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Zoll, Cheryl. 1993. Directionless syllabification and ghosts in Yawelmani. Ms.,
UC Berkeley. [ROA-28].
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint-Based Framework.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14. 263-286.
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional Asymmetries and Licensing. Paper presented at the
1998 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.
Zygis, Marzena. 2004. (Un)markedness of trills: the case of Slavic r-palatalisation.
ZAS Papers in Linguistics 37. 137-166.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation explores the correlation between grammatical markedness and the phonological properties of outputs inflected for morpho-syntactic categories on a grammatical markedness hierarchy. The main claim made in the thesis is that, under otherwise similar phonological conditions, outputs carrying specifications for a marked member (g) of a given grammatical category (G) can license a given type of marked phonological structure (M) to an extent that is equal or greater than outputs inflected for the unmarked category.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Minimal contrast and the phonology-phonetics interaction
PDF
The Spanish feminine el at the syntax-phonology interface
PDF
Sources of non-conformity in phonology: variation and exceptionality in Modern Hebrew spirantization
PDF
Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word
PDF
Syntax-prosody interactions in the clausal domain: head movement and coalescence
PDF
Soft biases in phonology: learnability meets grammar
PDF
Tone gestures and constraint interaction in Sierra Juarez Zapotec
PDF
Articulatory knowledge in phonological computation
PDF
Syntactic derivation and the theory of matching contextual features
PDF
Sound sequence adaptation in loanword phonology
PDF
Connecting phrasal and rhythmic events: evidence from second language speech
PDF
Harmony in gestural phonology
PDF
Register and style variation in speakers of Spanish as a heritage and as a second language
PDF
Wh-fronting in Chinese
PDF
The locative alternation: unaccusative constructions and subject position
PDF
The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology
PDF
Agreement on the left edge: the syntax of left dislocation in Spanish
PDF
Direct objects in Persian
PDF
A reduplicative analysis of sentence modal adverbs in Spanish
PDF
Semantic and syntactic effects on double prepositional phrase ordering across the lifespan
Asset Metadata
Creator
Iscrulescu, Cristian
(author)
Core Title
The phonological dimension of grammatical markedness
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Linguistics
Publication Date
10/30/2006
Defense Date
05/16/2006
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
functional grounding,grammatical markedness,licensing constraint,OAI-PMH Harvest,optimality theory,phonological markedness,Romanian
Language
English
Advisor
Walker, Rachel (
committee chair
), Lubowicz, Anna (
committee member
), Moreton, Elliot (
committee member
), Saltarelli, Mario (
committee member
)
Creator Email
iscrules@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m113
Unique identifier
UC1212254
Identifier
etd-Iscrulescu-20061030 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-35497 (legacy record id),usctheses-m113 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Iscrulescu-20061030.pdf
Dmrecord
35497
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Iscrulescu, Cristian
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
functional grounding
grammatical markedness
licensing constraint
optimality theory
phonological markedness