Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity Michael Wagner, MIT. chaelmit.edu web.mit.educhaelwww

1
Prosody meetsParadigm UniformityMichael
Wagner, MIT.chael_at_mit.eduweb.mit.edu/chael/www
2
Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity
What is Paradigm Uniformity?
Paradigm Uniformity (PU)A segmental or prosodic
property of an output form is imported' from
aparadigm which is defined based on a particular
set of morpho-syntacticfeatures. This could be
based on a particular privileged form in
theparadigm (the base') or by organizational
principles affectingphonological properties of
entire paradigms.

• Any real case of PU would constitute evidence
  for the notion paradigm to play a role in the
  theory of grammar
• This would be a case of phonological as opposed
  to morphological evidence
• (as in, say, Carstairs-Mccarthys work and
  elsewhere).

3
Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity

• Underapplication of Assibilation in first part
  of the word imported from other forms in the
  paradigm.
• In longer stems, the change introduced by
  assibilation is irrelevant since stem forms
  overlap sufficiently anyway.

If this is the correct generalization, this would
constitute evidence for paradigmatic effects.

4
Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity

• Anttila 2004 Prosodic Approach.
• Reference to Paradigms unnecessary.
• Laalos PU-Approach empirically incorrect.

• Preview of Comments Attempt to Generalize
  Anttilas Argument
• Predictive Value of PU within a theory of
  morpho-phonology
• Look at another case where PU fails, and Prosody
  does the job

5
A. Predictive Value of Paradigm Uniformity
For PU-Effects, there is (to my knowledge) no
theoretical expectation with respect to the
following questions (1) Which phonological
properties are likely to be imported' from the
paradigm? (2) Which particular morpho-syntactic
features span out the paradigms that induce PU
effects?At least if  PU effects are simply
posited by the linguist as a last resort
where (i) other analyses fail to predict a
property of an output, (ii) and importing the
property form the paradigm is possible since
it IS somewhere in the paradigm in the first
place, (weak theory of PU) then calling these
cases PU effects is rather post-hoc and
descriptive at best. Discussion only on
Case-by-Case basis possible.

6
A. Predictive Value of Paradigm Uniformity
Anttilas Analysis is couched in the theory of
Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2003) that makes very
explicit predictions (1) All phonological
paradigmatic effects are only apparent---no PU
(2) There is a three step derivation (stem
level gt word level gt post-lexical level), which
is the only source of opacity (3) Morphological
evidence for ordering processes/affixes at
certain levels (featural composition,
ordering, reference to declension class only
at stem level) (4) Phonological Evidence for
ordering processes/affixes at certain levels
(same level transparent interaction, ordering
different derivational steps) (5)
Derivational Effects for ANY phonological
property---but independent evidence for
ordering of these processes at the respective
level is available. Stratal OT tries to relate
phonology and morpho-syntax in a predictive and
insightful way, and is thus motivationally
similar to DM.
7
A. Predictive Value of Paradigm Uniformity
The lack of a similarly restrictive theory makes
weak PU unattractive.
A strong theory of PU effects could attempt to
replace alternative tools (e.g. level ordering in
Stratal OT). But

• Anttila gives evidence for Opacity Effects that
  are not amenable to a PU analysis (for more
  evidence for a derivation and against PU and
  other Output-Output Correspondence-Tools see
  Kiparsky (in progress))
• Apocope counter-feeds Consonant Gradation,
• Apocope counter-bleeds Assibilation.
• Consonant Gradation counter-feeds Assibilation

Conclusion so far PU as it stands fails to give
an insight on phonology/morphology interaction,
fails to capture morphological effects, and
cannot replace derivational approaches to opacity.
8
A. Predictive Value of Paradigm Uniformity
Two outstanding puzzles for Anttilas Approach

• Are ordering predictions really borne out
  (Kenstowicz 94, Anttila p.c.)?
• e -gt i raising feeds assibilation (vete -gt vesi)
• i raising is a word level process (vete -gt vetena
  essive (water))
• Assibilation is a stem-level process (ordering
  arguments)
• Is Stratal OT wrong?
• Maybe it needs modification---given the
  otherwise correct predictions, it seems rash to
  throw out everything unless there is a good
  alternative

• (2) Is prosodic story really correct? What about
  NDEB? (Anttila 2002, Nels)
• Many of old NDEB effects are explained
  prosodically (vesi vs. koti home))
• But there are still NDEB effects that are
  unaccounted stem gt 2mora suunti
• Is prosody the wrong theory after all? Is NDEB
  sufficient?
• Given correlation between apocope and
  assibliation, prosodic component clearly
  necessary.

9
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
If there was a wide array of PU effects, we could
start developing a theory of which types of
phonological properties are imported---but are
there many convincing cases? Heres a case
involving derivational morphology and compounding
Final Laryngeal Neutralization in German (FLN).

• Lenis obstruents become fortis
• Before a voiceless obstruent
• Finally (to be specified)
• Approach in Steriade 1997 Licensing by Cue
  Paradigm Uniformity

Discussed in Wagner (2002) http//web.mit.edu/ch
ael/www/wagner2002MITWPL-Paper.pdf
10
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU

11
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Finally e.g. phrase finally, realized as
fortis

12
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Finally e.g. phrase finally, realized as
fortis

13
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Problem Neutralization finally even if
sonorant or vowel follows---which should be a
good environment to realize the contrast. Example
here Compounds
14
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Consider /tag/ -gt tak day Sie /tag/
/en/? -gt tagN they convene takN
Vs. /mag/ -gt mak likes 3rd person Sie
/mag/ /ihn/ -gt Sie makN she likes
him Sie magN (unless she stomach)

• There does not seem to be a phonetic motivation
  here.

15
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Proposed Solution Paradigm Uniformity
Voicelessness imported from other forms in the
Paradigm.
16
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
But This doesnt work! as can be illustrated
by looking at different derivatives
17
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
(Adjective derives from NOUN!)
18
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
But This doesnt work! (both derive
from NOUN!)
19
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
(not neutralized in any paradigm---but
still in derivative its neutralized!!)
20
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
.still, even though nowehere to import from,
Neutralization before Affix.
21
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
Alternative Solution Prosodically Conditioned
Neutralization. (Note Notion Syllable is
irrelevant---there is no coda-devoicing (at least
in German and Dutch!). Arguments see Wagner
(2002).
22
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
23
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU
24
B. Another case for Prosody and against PU

• Again an account that
• makes no reference to paradigms, but only to
  prosody
• arguments that PU-Approach is empirically
  incorrect.
• The opacity is as expected in Stratal OT
• (word level process of neutralization,
  counter-bled by phrasing with following words and
  clitics, but bled by stem-level affixation)
• (alternative derivational approaches could do
  the job as well)

25
Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity

• Predictive Value of PU within a theory of
  morpho-phonology
• Look at another case where PU fails, and Prosody
  does the job

• Conclusion
• Based on the phenomena discussed here,
• no evidence for PU, henceforth no evidence of
  Paradigms.
• some doubts have been raised whether PU can
  compete as a theory of morpho-phonology.

26
Prosody meets Paradigm Uniformity

maybe paradigms exist not in nature but only in
the eye of the beholder, i.e. the lepidopterist