USC Advanced Undergraduate Phonology ✳︎ Fall 2019 ✳︎ Smith

The challenge

• In rule-and-constraint based phonology, to describe a language you need:
  • an ordered list of rules
  • a list of URs (the lexicon)
  • a phoneme inventory
  • maybe restrictions on combinations of segments in URs (called Morpheme Structure Constraint (MSCs))
  • maybe restrictions on the segments allowed in outputs or derivations
    • called “Wellformedness constraints” or “Surface phonetic constraints”
• Some of the restrictions above seem redundant: the Duplication Problem.
• In OT, all you have is…
  • a list of URs (the lexicon)
  • a ranked list of constraints
  • The lack of an underlying alphabet – or any constraints on the structure of URs – is a property called Richness of the Base.
• So how can we account for which sounds do and don’t contrast, without stating the phoneme inventory?
  • How do we state the inventory, generally?
  • This seems potentially problematic given Richness of the Base…
• Probably not surprising: inventories and contrast come solely from constraint ranking.
  • Contrast in OT comes from faithfulness constraints, which preserve contrast in a certain environment.
  • Markedness constraints militate against the faithful realization of inputs containing sounds illicit in a language.

Possible patterns of contrast

• No contrast
  • How do we know it when we see it?
• Full contrast
  • How do we know it when we see it?
• Contextually limited contrast
  • How do we know it when we see it?
  • How does this relate to positional neutralization?
• No contrast - free variation
  • How do we know it when we see it?
  • The version of OT we’re considering isn’t built to model it.
  • EVAL results in a single optimal candidate, or multiple optimal candidates if they have identical violation profiles. ¹

Complementary distribution between sounds (no contrast)

• Imagine a language where [p] and [b] are in complementary distribution, and allophones of a single phoneme.
• In rule terms:
  • /p/ → [b] / V__V no phoneme /b/
  • /p/ → [p] elsewhere (since there’s no rule)
  • Why is [b] only between vowels?
  • Why is [p] everywhere else?
• Translate into OT using:
  • *V[-voice]V
  • *[+voice,-son]
  • Ident([voice])
• Assume these inputs
  • /ap/ ‘dog’ (real word)
  • /ap+a/ ‘dogs’ (real word)
  • /ab/ ‘?’ (hypothetical input)
  • /ab+a/ ‘?(plural)’ (hypothetical input)
• /p/ and /b/ don’t contrast, because the grammar won’t let you have a minimal pair.
• What is it about the ranking that makes that so?

Full contrast between sounds

• Imagine a different language, where /p/ and /b/ are separate phonemes, with no voicing alternations.
• Same constraints
  • *V[-voice]V
  • *[+voice,-son]
  • Ident([voice])
• Find the ranking for:
  • /ap/ ‘dog’
  • /ap+a/ ‘dogs’
  • /ab/ ‘cat’
  • /ab+a/ ‘cats’
• /p/ and /b/ contrast fully-you can get a minimal pair in any environment.
• What is it about the ranking that makes that so?

Contextually-limited contrast (positional neutralization)

• Imagine language with a voicing contrast (phonemes /p/ and /b/), but also intervocalic voicing.
• In rule terms:
  • /p/ → [b] / V__V
  • /p/ → [p] elsewhere
  • /b/ → [b] everywhere
• Same constraints
  • *V[-voice]V
  • *[+voice,-son]
  • Ident([voice])
• Find the ranking for:
  • /ap/ ‘dog’
  • /ap+a/ ‘dogs’
  • /ab/ ‘cat’
  • /ab+a/ ‘cats’
• /p/ & /b/ contrast in some environments – but in other environments, you get neutralization.
• What is it about the ranking that makes that so?
• Have we missed any members of the factorial typology for these three constraints?
  • There are 3! rankings – any other patterns?

Contextually limited contrast two ways

• Example: coda devoicing (German, Catalan, Russian, etc.)
  • In onsets, obstruents contrast in voicing.
  • That contrast does not occur in coda position.
  • Results in both positional neutralization and contextually-limited contrast.
• Two approaches in OT:
  • Context-specific markedness constraints
    • Cause neutralization in a particular environment
    • Example: *Coda-voice
  • Contextually-limited faithfulness constraints
    • Preserve contrast in a particular environment
    • Example: Ident-onset([voice])

Contextually-limited contrast as contextual faithfulness

• Beckman (1998) takes another approach to contextually limited contrast
  • She proposes positional faithfulness constraints, now standard in OT analyses.
  • Contrast is preserved in a context X because a faithfulness constraint targets segments in that context.
  • Common contexts where contrast is preserved: stressed syllables, initial syllables, onsets: all contexts that are perceptually salient.
• Preservation of voicing in onsets could be captured by the constraint below:
  • Ident-onset-([voice])
    Let Y be an output segment in the onset, and X the corresponding input segment. Assign one violation if Y is [αvoice] and X is not [αvoice].
• Let’s work this out for some hypothetical inputs:
  • /bad/ → [bat]
  • /bad-e/ → [bade]
  • /gat/ → [gat]
  • /gat-e/ → [gate]
  • We can also pursue an alternative analysis using a context-specific markedness constraint like *Coda-voice.
• Could we use positional faithfulness for the case of neutralization in intervocalic voicing? Let’s sketch an analysis.

Lexicon optimization

• Does Richness of the Base mean anything can be in underlying representations?
  • In theory, yes – there are no hard limits on URs.
• Does Richness of the Base mean underlying representations in a language include everything?
  • For an actual language, no – learners won’t posit “weird” or “crazy” URs without evidence.
• Prince & Smolensky (1993/2004) suggest a learning procedure called Lexicon Optimization.
  • For a given phonetic form, the chosen UR will be the one that maps onto the SR with the fewest violation of highest-ranked constraints.
  • In the absence of aleternations, learners will pick a UR that gives a mapping minimizing the violation of faithfulness constraints: the UR matches the SR.
  • This runs contrary to the idea that we should minimize the number of underlying sounds in a language, and it especially runs contrary to the usage of abstract phonemes to minimize the number of underlying sounds.
• An example: imagine a non-alternating phonological property – like the aspiration of initial [kʰ] in [kʰæt] in English.
  • The correct grammar for English will ensure the surface occurrence of [kʰ] in [kʰæt] no matter whether [kʰ] or [k] is present underlyingly.
  • The advantage of the mapping /kʰæt/ ➞ [kʰæt] over /kæt/ ➞ [kæt] is that the former avoids a faithfulness violation, e.g. Ident([spread glottis]).
  • So learners will posit the mapping /kʰæt/ ➞ [kʰæt].
  • Non-alternating phonological properties will always be present in URs.

Recap of important ideas

• Capturing contrast in OT
• Richness of the Base
• Lexicon Optimization
• Contextually-limited contrast as…
  • Contextual markedness
  • Positional faithfulness