Rules, Constraints, and Overlapping Violations:

the case of Acoma accent loss

Approaches to Phonological OpacityGLOW Workshop 2006

Joan Chen-Mainjoan@cogsci.jhu.edu

Johns Hopkins University

2

Rule-based Phonology

• Generalizations about a language’s sound structure stated as rewrite rules

• Opacity effects: generalizations are not surface true

• The application of the rules is ordered

That’s all about the interaction of different rules, but . . .

3

Overlapping Violations

What about when a single rule can apply multiple times to the same string?

e.g. X → Y/__ X

i.e. XX → YX• independent: X X A X X → Y X A Y X

• overlapping: X X X A B → ?

4

Possible Ways to Apply a Rule

• Anderson’s (1974) How to Apply a Rule to a Form

• left-to-right– Mandarin tone sandhi 3-3 → 2-3

3-3-3-3 → 2-2-2-3

• right-to-left– Slovak ‘rhythmic law’ CV: CV: → CV: CV

CV: CV: CV: → CV: CV CV

• simultaneous

5

Optimality Theory: the appeal

• Duplication in Rule-based theory– Rules are bound by the segmental inventory

• Conspiracies of Rules– Different repairs all resulting in the same

surface form

• Do X except/only when . . .

6

Optimality Theory: difficulty 1Opacity

• Opaque generalizations are non-surface true– take place at an intermediate representation– predicted by any theory allowing intermediate

representations

• OT does not allow intermediate representations

7

Optimality Theory: difficulty 2

Non-local interaction• Wilson’s (in prep) observation:

In classic OT, unattested, non-local interaction is possible. e.g. between epenthesis and nasal spreading

– *CC#

– Spread-R([+nasal], PrWd): For every [+nasal] autosegment n, assign 1 violation for every segment in the same prosodic word that is to the right of n’s domain. (Walker,1998/2002, for Malay)

8

Optimality Theory: difficulty 2

Non-local interaction

– Vowel epenthesis applies to a final consonant cluster except when there is a preceding [+nasal] feature anywhere in the word that is blocked from spreading to the right edge.

/nawakast/Spread-R([+nasal],

PrWd)*CC#

a. nawakast

*****!

b. nawakast

**** *

9

An OT Extension

• Targeted Constraint OT (Wilson, in prep)– does allow intermediate representations:

solves opacity problem– avoids predicting “farsighted” patterns

10

Outline

• Targeted Constraint Optimality Theory(Wilson’s post 2001 version)– targeted constraints– candidate evaluation

• TCOT vs. rule-based phonology

• Acoma accent loss– difficulties with a rule-based account– availability of a TCOT account

11

Targeted Constraint OT

• Two novel aspects:1) How change is integrated

Changes are introduced by GENs associated with a particular targeted markedness constraints.

2) How changes are evaluatedThe system rewards certain changes but penalizes others.

12

Targeted Constraints

• A targeted constraint C is a pairing of a locus of violation (λ) with a change (δ)

• Wilson’s claim: δ is the minimal perceptual change

• Machinery allows any rule to have a targeted constraint analogue

13

Targeted Constraint Analogues

V[+short] → [-accent] / [+obst] __ [+obst] C0 [+ syll, + accent]

T:*CLASH:

λ: two consecutive [+accent] syllables, where the first vowel is short and is

flanked on both sides by an obstruent.

δ: [+accent] → [-accent] in the first syllable

C0 = zero or more consonants

14

GENC associated with a Targeted Constraint C

• GENC maps a candidate to a candidate set: all candidates that can be derived by applying change δ to zero or more instances of the locus λ.

• e.g. If σXσXσX has 2 violations of T:*CLASH, then GENT:*CLASH produces 4 candidates

– the completely faithful candidate σXσXσX

– the candidate where δ is applied to both λ’s σσσX

– two candidates where δ is only applied to one λ σσXσX, σXσσX

15

Targeted Constraint Evaluation

• When comparing the input representation x with a candidate output y . . .– For every λ in y, assign 1 mark to y.– For every λ in x that is repaired in y in the way

specified by δ, remove 1 mark from y.– For every λ in x that is repaired in y in a way

not specified by δ, add 1 mark to y.

16

Example Evaluation

candidate y violations that remain

violations fixed as specified by δ

violations fixed, but not as specified by δ

Total

σXσXσX +2 0 + 0 0 + 0 = +2

σσσX 0 (-1) + (-1) 0 + 0 = -2

σσXσX +1 (-1) + 0 0 + 0 = 0

σXσσX 0 0 + (-1) +1 + 0 = 0

Input x: σXσXσX

17

Rewarding Rule Application

output y Number of times rewrite rule could apply

Number of times rewrite rule did apply

(-2) for each rule application

Total

σXσXσX 2 0 2 + 0 = +2

σσσX 2 2 2 + 2(-2) = -2

σσXσX 2 1 2 + 1(-2) = 0

σXσσX 2 1 2 + 1(-2) = 0

Input x: σXσXσX

18

TCOT and Rule-based Phonology

• Specify preferred repairs

• Generate intermediate representations

• Good at accounting for data that is difficult for Classic OT

How do TCOT and rule-based phonology differ?

19

TCOT vs. Rule-based Phonology

• Notion of minimal perceptual change (δ)– could be incorporated into rule-based theory

• Candidate evaluation in TCOT, as in Classic OT– competing output candidates evaluated against

a set of ranked, violable constraints

Does retaining an OT architecture ever result in different predictions?

20

Acoma: the people

• Acoma pueblo: Sky City– approx. 60mi west of Albuquerque, NM– oldest continuously inhabited city in the U.S. – distinctive pottery

• Acoma language– closely related to other pueblo languages– data from Miller’s (1965) book

Dorothy Torivio

21

Acoma: accent ablaut (Miller 1965)

• In the presence of an ablauting suffix, a high accent is assigned to every syllable– sometimes with the lengthening of final vowel– sometimes excepting certain final syllables

without accent ablaut:r û u n i š i ‘Monday’

with accent ablaut:r u u n i š i i z e ‘on Monday’

22

Acoma: accent loss(Miller 1965)

• a short syllable between obstruents followed by an accented syllable loses its accent

• Anderson’s rule (1974)

V → [-accent] / [+obst] ___ [+obst] C0 [+ syll, + accent]

– context: the conditions for application of the rule – focus: the segments that satisfy the conditions

23

One Focus for Accent Loss

s i u k a c a n i →

s i u k a c a n i ‘when I saw him’

simultaneou

s left-to-right

right-to-left

1 focus ok ok ok

24

Two Foci for Accent Loss

k' a p i š ə n i →

k' a p i š ə n i ‘at night’

• simultaneous rule application:

σX σX σX σX rule applies to all foci

σ σ σX σX attested pattern

25

Two Foci for Accent Loss

k' a p i š ə n i →

k' a p i š ə n i ‘at night’

• LR rule application:

σX σX σX σX rule applies to the leftmost focus

σ σX σX σX rule applies to next-leftmost focus

σ σ σX σX attested pattern

26

Two Foci for Accent Loss

k' a p i š ə n i →

k' a p i š ə n i ‘at night’

• RL rule application:

σX σX σX σX rule applies to the rightmost focus σX σ σX σX context for next-rightmost focus is

destroyed

σX σ σX σX non-attested surface pattern

27

Two Foci for Accent Loss

simultaneous

left-to-right

right-to-left

1 focus ok ok ok

2 foci ok ok X

28

Three Foci for Accent Loss

s u c i t i s t a a n i →

s u c i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’

• simultaneous rule application:

σX σX σX σX σX 3 foci for accent loss

σ σ σ σX σX non-attested surface pattern

29

Three Foci for Accent Loss

s u c i t i s t a a n i →

s u c i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’

• LR rule application:

σX σX σX σX σX rule applies to the leftmost focus

σ σX σX σX σX rule applies to the next-leftmost focus

σ σ σX σX σX rule applies to last focus

σ σ σ σX σX non-attested surface form

30

Three Foci for Accent Loss

s u c i t i s t a a n i →

s u c i t i s t a a n i ‘when I was thinking’ • RL rule application:

σX σX σX σX σX rule applies to the rightmost focus

σX σX σ σX σX context for next-rightmost focus is destroyed

σX σX σ σX σX rule applies to next-rightmost focus

σ σX σ σX σX attested pattern

31

Inconsistent Rule Application

simultaneous

left-to-right

right-to-left

1 focus ok ok ok

2 foci ok ok X

3 foci X X ok

32

Modified Rule Application

• Anderson’s solution– If any contexts for a rule contains a focus for

the same rule, eliminate the minimal number of (focus+context)s from consideration to yield independent (focus+context)s

σX σX σX σX → σX σX σX σX

– Indeterminacies resolved by choosing to maximize feeding and minimizing bleeding

– Allow some rules to reapply

33

Constraints in TCOT Analysis

T:*CLASH:λ: two consecutive [+accent] syllables, where the first vowel is short and is flanked on both sides by an obstruent.

δ: [+accent] → [-accent] in the first syllable

FAITH-ACCENT: penalize changes in a syllable’s accent

*LAPSE-ACCENT: penalize two consecutive unaccented syllables

*EXTLAPSE-ACCENT: penalize three consecutive unaccented syllables (Gordon 2002)

34

Constraint Ranking

• In the 2 foci case: σXσXσXσX• T:*CLASH’s most preferred candidate

removes 2 accents: σσσX• Lower ranking of *LAPSE-ACCENT cannot

eliminate T:*CLASH’s preferred candidate

*EXTLAPSE-ACCENT >> T:*CLASH >> *LAPSE-ACCENT, FAITH-ACCENT

35

Constraint Ranking

• In the 3 foci case: σXσXσXσXσX• T:*CLASH’s most preferred candidate

removes 3 accents: σσσσXσX• But the higher ranked *EXTLAPSE-ACCENT

prevents this candidate from being optimal• T:*CLASH’s next-most preferred candidates

remove 2 accents: σXσσσXσX, σσXσσXσX, σσσXσXσX• The lower ranked *LAPSE-ACCENT chooses

σσXσσXσX

*EXTLAPSE-ACCENT >> T:*CLASH >> *LAPSE-ACCENT, FAITH-ACCENT

36

Constraint Re-Ranking

• Top-ranked T:*CLASH simulates– simultaneous rule application– left-to-right rule application

T:*CLASH >>*EXTLAPSE-ACCENT, *LAPSE-ACCENT, FAITH-ACCENT

37

Constraint Re-Ranking

• T:*CLASH ranked below *LAPSE-ACCENT simulates– right-to-left rule application

*EXTLAPSE-ACCENT,*LAPSE-ACCENT >>T:*CLASH >> FAITH-ACCENT

38

Typology of Rule Application

Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule

*LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units

*EXT-LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units

• simultaneous rule applicationTC >> *LAPSE, *EXT-LAPSE

39

Typology of Rule Application

Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule

*LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units

*EXT-LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units

• Anderson-style simultaneous rule application*EXT-LAPSE >> TC >> *LAPSE

40

Typology of Rule Application

Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule

*LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units

*EXT-LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units

• left-to-right rule application– when δ targets the left e.g. X → Y/__ X

TC >> *LAPSE, *EXT-LAPSE

– when δ targets the right e.g. X → Y/ X __

*LAPSE, *EXT-LAPSE >> TC

41

Typology of Rule Application

Targeted Constraint: analogue of a rule

*LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 2 units

*EXT-LAPSE: Contrast preserving constraint over 3 units

• right-to-left rule application– when δ targets the left e.g. X → Y/__ X

*LAPSE, *EXT-LAPSE >> TC– when δ targets the right e.g. X → Y/ X __

TC >> *LAPSE, *EXT-LAPSE

42

Concluding Remarks

TCOT vs. Classic OT

• TCOT provides analyses for opacity effects

• TCOT avoids predicting unattested non-local interaction

43

Concluding Remarks

TCOT vs. Rule-based phonology

• In rule-based phonology, Acoma accent loss requires Anderson’s modification

• In TCOT, re-ranking of constraints predicts– Acoma pattern– apparent LR, RL, and simultaneous rule

application

44

Concluding Remarks

How should we view TCOT?

• As a mixed model of rule-constraint interaction: a formalization of pre-OT suggestions (Paradis 1988, Myers 1991)

45

Acknowledgements

• Colin Wilson

• Luigi Burzio, Sara Finley, Bob Frank, Gaja Jarosz, Paul Smolensky

46

Bibliography

Anderson, S. 1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press.

Gordon, M. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 491-552.

Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kisseberth, C. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1:291-306.

McCarthy, J. 2003. On targeted constraints and cluster simplification. Phonology 19, 273-292.

Miller, W. 1965. Acoma grammar and texts. (University of California Publications in Linguistics No. 40.) Berkeley: University of California Press.

Myers, S. 1991. Persistent Rules. Linguistic Inquiry. 22:315-344.

47

Paradis, C. 1988. On Constraints and Repair Strategies. The Linguistic Review 6: 71-97.

Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, 1993. Revised version published by Blackwell, 2004.

Steriade, D. 2001. The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: the P-map and its Consequences for Constraint Organization. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.

Wilson, C. 2001. Consonant Cluster Neutralisation and Targeted Constraints. Phonology 18:147-197.

Wilson, C. (in prep). Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: marks, targets, and derivations. Ms. University of California, Los Angeles.